development.

On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as

demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can
not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable
emission of GHGs.
Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration
by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have
vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and
thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or
developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among
the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path
and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS
and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting
the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future
citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the
advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who
have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must
vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD
seeking LDCs and SIDS.
Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for
Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the
low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees
Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is
still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs,
provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than
later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which
needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs
and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the
provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have
acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green
house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than
1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to
internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential.
Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make
their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on
limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a
legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet
equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present.
Afirmations
1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses
to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities
2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum
for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act
together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate
change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people
of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in
order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the
nation can proceed unhindered.
energy production, consumption, transformation and transport
without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens.
Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of
sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued
wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to
Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival.
Survival is non-negotiable;
4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in
a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of
the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an
accompanying implementation package deemed adequate;
5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable
manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and
course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be
in place and be an integral part of the LBA;
6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for
aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation,
adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a
seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020
ambition;
7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the
priority depending on national circumstances as well as the
importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without
prejudice to the Convention process;
8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate
inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing
countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as
leveraging more investments from the private sector;
9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential.
Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a
requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN
Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic
negotiations need to be undertaken;
10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with
the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to
go about such national legislation process and may provide
capacity-building support for the purpose.
B. Shared Vision
1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency
and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global
average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the
pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas
Demands
A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP
After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the
negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new
Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and
be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of
pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020
ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction
efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will
determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the
implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and
architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period.
No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the
said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal
impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since
climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food
insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be
legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as
treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception.
Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for
discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking
with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of
1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and
by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their
consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship
with global peaking.
Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are
as follows:
1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required
support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the
lead based on CBDR&RC;
2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to
their different national circumstances such as level of development,
natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and
appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the
means of implementation (inance, technology development and
transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries
that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The
commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also
be an integral element of the LBA.
3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do
so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of
CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable
development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources
as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to
D. Adaptation
1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with
those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected
communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the
tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined
by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and
desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional
and capacity-building support;
2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact
will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far.
Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively
designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be
obvious now and will require smart planning, design and
implementation process for which capacity of the countries including
inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need
for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for
technology development would have to be supported.
3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The
present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical
relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single
period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised
differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only
the lower bound of the costs of adaptation.
4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally
and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take
decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing
experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on
adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a
multi-stage process and required international support has to be
tailored and monitored accordingly.
E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism
Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be
avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good
through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the
entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts.
While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of
loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and
damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any
case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and
damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we
make the following points:
1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be
lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk
reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to
recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism
emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than
2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined
by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of
GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering
is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be
different for developing countries based upon full realization of the
principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may
have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global
peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect
from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that
by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990
baseline;
2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all
aspects of global and national management of climate change in
particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and
compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive
to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones
(subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering
to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so
shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in
global capability scale.
C. Mitigation
1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action
that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their
emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline
levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the
aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by
2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as
individual nations as well as a group.
A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020
target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that
the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction
targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been
encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged
to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also
jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly.
2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary
actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective
capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon
Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate
sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries
should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher
capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They
have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020.
community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising
and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D
capacity in countries.
1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and
transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate
prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race,
ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to
further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS.
2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially
acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training,
development and diffusion.
3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from
each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly
in case of adaptation in similar environment.
4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the
access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies,
recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get
preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements
such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has
to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard,
the very long term nature of climate change impact and the
consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term
arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other
multilateral arrangements.
5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation
and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent
manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready
with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and
capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs
to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on
how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs.
G. Agriculture
1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global
negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no
country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run
particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and
there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such
synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically
investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability
assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP
decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various
agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what
extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global
good without compromising global and national food security. Country
and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the
loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss
and damage.
2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and
consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare
that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected
from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries.
Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay
principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as
well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable
development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative
interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes
may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained
from external sources on account of compensation should go to the
government account with the condition that this would be utilized for
a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change
related loss and damage, including related insurance premium.
3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow
from the country or community receiving such insurance covers.
4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable
countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past
loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying
risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such
estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will
guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future
loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may
come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of
mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of
L&D before entering into Paris Agreement.
5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for
immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial
funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event.
6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and
inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in
the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created
immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past
loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever
so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on
LDCs and SIDS.
F. Technology Transfer and Development
Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology
action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well
as domestic technology development. These processes should be
country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as
national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at
Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in
their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports.
H. Migration
1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a
household response mechanism in absence of other viable
opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the
preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option.
Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced
displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour
migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related
negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of
climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated
compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all
relevant discussions.
2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable
alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social
well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This
must be the irst option for the affected country and the
international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and
otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised.
Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to
relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own
countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand
to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate
livelihood restoration through robust adaptation.
3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we
demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an
appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing
with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational.
An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with
human dignity.
I. Capacity Building
1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people,
Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and
implementation of development policies and practices. While this
needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate
resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term
capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi
Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the
existing ones with enhanced capacity.
2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and
capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for
capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop
projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise
engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of
capacity/capability along with the national capacity.
J. Finance
In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and
adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently
through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance
must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there
are several important issues related to inance which must receive
immediate attention. These are as follows:
1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs
and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested
and successful climate change resilient technologies, for
adaptation and mitigation, in those countries.
2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to,
and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of
the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the
appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full.
3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during
the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other
countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges
particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre
and post-2020 funding arrangements.
4. Developed countries should submit information on their
strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support
provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance
under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge;
5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on
pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling
environments should be continued given the escalating need for
inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should
prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial
lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource
mobilisation efforts.
6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the
architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of
all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the
LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between
the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one
from the other. These become crucial for further development of
the Green Climate Fund.
7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology
development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and
the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in
relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly
support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage.
Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may
not be enough and private investments will be necessary.
As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made,
mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may
be available. But wherever private funds may not be available,
public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private
investment must not result in climate colonialism through net
outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into
consideration the realised beneits of the investments.
8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand
on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be
burdened further with other demands such as compensatory
grants for recouping past loss and damage.
9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and
private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory
mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation
principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to
economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and
transparency for the private sector to follow.
We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a
successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes
of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective
LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns
and our support will always be with your people.
sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries
development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment
of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race,
colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status;
The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process
in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from
natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human
dignity;
And
Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and
limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many
developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably
acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement;
And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS
having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon
them as well as the globe.
We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of
Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities
(CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone
of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central
role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as
relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so
far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency
and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We
need to initiate stronger and proactive actions.
Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing
when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the
same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that
our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general
interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is,
therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent
stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations
more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our
collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will
stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS
in this respect.
We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have
recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas
emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of
united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an
agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as
the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum
global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its
inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent
catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to
voice their concern about this reversal in commitment.
Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable
A
B
a
n
g
l
a
d
e
s
h
C
i
v
i
l
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
D
e
c
l
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
C
l
i
m
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
N
e
g
o
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
E
N
S
U
R
E

E
Q
U
IT
Y
,
J
U
S
T
IC
E

A
N
D

F
A
IR
N
E
S
S

S
U
R
V
I
V
A
L

I
S

N
O
T

N
E
G
O
T
I
A
B
L
E
PREAMBLE
Whereas,
There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to
suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change,
representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small
Island Developing States (SIDS),
And
Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and
adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that
directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all
development. On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as
demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can
not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable
emission of GHGs.
Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration
by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have
vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and
thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or
developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among
the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path
and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS
and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting
the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future
citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the
advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who
have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must
vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD
seeking LDCs and SIDS.
Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for
Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the
low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees
Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is
still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs,
provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than
later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which
needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs
and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the
provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have
acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green
house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than
1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to
internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential.
Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make
their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on
limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a
legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet
equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present.
Afirmations
1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses
to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities
2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum
for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act
together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate
change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people
of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in
order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the
nation can proceed unhindered.
energy production, consumption, transformation and transport
without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens.
Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of
sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued
wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to
Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival.
Survival is non-negotiable;
4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in
a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of
the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an
accompanying implementation package deemed adequate;
5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable
manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and
course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be
in place and be an integral part of the LBA;
6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for
aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation,
adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a
seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020
ambition;
7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the
priority depending on national circumstances as well as the
importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without
prejudice to the Convention process;
8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate
inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing
countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as
leveraging more investments from the private sector;
9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential.
Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a
requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN
Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic
negotiations need to be undertaken;
10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with
the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to
go about such national legislation process and may provide
capacity-building support for the purpose.
B. Shared Vision
1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency
and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global
average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the
pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas
Demands
A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP
After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the
negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new
Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and
be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of
pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020
ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction
efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will
determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the
implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and
architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period.
No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the
said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal
impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since
climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food
insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be
legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as
treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception.
Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for
discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking
with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of
1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and
by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their
consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship
with global peaking.
Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are
as follows:
1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required
support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the
lead based on CBDR&RC;
2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to
their different national circumstances such as level of development,
natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and
appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the
means of implementation (inance, technology development and
transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries
that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The
commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also
be an integral element of the LBA.
3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do
so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of
CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable
development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources
as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to
D. Adaptation
1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with
those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected
communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the
tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined
by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and
desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional
and capacity-building support;
2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact
will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far.
Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively
designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be
obvious now and will require smart planning, design and
implementation process for which capacity of the countries including
inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need
for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for
technology development would have to be supported.
3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The
present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical
relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single
period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised
differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only
the lower bound of the costs of adaptation.
4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally
and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take
decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing
experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on
adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a
multi-stage process and required international support has to be
tailored and monitored accordingly.
E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism
Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be
avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good
through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the
entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts.
While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of
loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and
damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any
case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and
damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we
make the following points:
1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be
lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk
reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to
recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism
emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than
2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined
by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of
GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering
is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be
different for developing countries based upon full realization of the
principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may
have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global
peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect
from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that
by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990
baseline;
2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all
aspects of global and national management of climate change in
particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and
compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive
to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones
(subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering
to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so
shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in
global capability scale.
C. Mitigation
1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action
that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their
emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline
levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the
aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by
2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as
individual nations as well as a group.
A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020
target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that
the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction
targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been
encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged
to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also
jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly.
2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary
actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective
capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon
Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate
sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries
should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher
capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They
have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020.
community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising
and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D
capacity in countries.
1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and
transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate
prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race,
ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to
further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS.
2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially
acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training,
development and diffusion.
3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from
each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly
in case of adaptation in similar environment.
4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the
access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies,
recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get
preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements
such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has
to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard,
the very long term nature of climate change impact and the
consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term
arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other
multilateral arrangements.
5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation
and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent
manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready
with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and
capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs
to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on
how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs.
G. Agriculture
1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global
negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no
country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run
particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and
there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such
synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically
investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability
assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP
decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various
agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what
extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global
good without compromising global and national food security. Country
and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the
loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss
and damage.
2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and
consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare
that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected
from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries.
Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay
principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as
well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable
development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative
interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes
may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained
from external sources on account of compensation should go to the
government account with the condition that this would be utilized for
a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change
related loss and damage, including related insurance premium.
3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow
from the country or community receiving such insurance covers.
4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable
countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past
loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying
risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such
estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will
guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future
loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may
come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of
mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of
L&D before entering into Paris Agreement.
5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for
immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial
funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event.
6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and
inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in
the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created
immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past
loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever
so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on
LDCs and SIDS.
F. Technology Transfer and Development
Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology
action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well
as domestic technology development. These processes should be
country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as
national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at
Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in
their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports.
H. Migration
1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a
household response mechanism in absence of other viable
opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the
preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option.
Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced
displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour
migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related
negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of
climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated
compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all
relevant discussions.
2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable
alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social
well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This
must be the irst option for the affected country and the
international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and
otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised.
Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to
relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own
countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand
to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate
livelihood restoration through robust adaptation.
3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we
demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an
appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing
with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational.
An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with
human dignity.
I. Capacity Building
1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people,
Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and
implementation of development policies and practices. While this
needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate
resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term
capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi
Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the
existing ones with enhanced capacity.
2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and
capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for
capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop
projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise
engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of
capacity/capability along with the national capacity.
J. Finance
In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and
adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently
through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance
must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there
are several important issues related to inance which must receive
immediate attention. These are as follows:
1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs
and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested
and successful climate change resilient technologies, for
adaptation and mitigation, in those countries.
2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to,
and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of
the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the
appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full.
3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during
the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other
countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges
particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre
and post-2020 funding arrangements.
4. Developed countries should submit information on their
strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support
provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance
under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge;
5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on
pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling
environments should be continued given the escalating need for
inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should
prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial
lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource
mobilisation efforts.
6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the
architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of
all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the
LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between
the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one
from the other. These become crucial for further development of
the Green Climate Fund.
7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology
development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and
the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in
relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly
support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage.
Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may
not be enough and private investments will be necessary.
As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made,
mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may
be available. But wherever private funds may not be available,
public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private
investment must not result in climate colonialism through net
outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into
consideration the realised beneits of the investments.
8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand
on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be
burdened further with other demands such as compensatory
grants for recouping past loss and damage.
9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and
private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory
mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation
principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to
economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and
transparency for the private sector to follow.
We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a
successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes
of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective
LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns
and our support will always be with your people.
sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries
development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment
of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race,
colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status;
The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process
in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from
natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human
dignity;
And
Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and
limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many
developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably
acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement;
And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS
having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon
them as well as the globe.
We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of
Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities
(CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone
of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central
role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as
relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so
far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency
and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We
need to initiate stronger and proactive actions.
Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing
when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the
same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that
our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general
interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is,
therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent
stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations
more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our
collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will
stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS
in this respect.
We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have
recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas
emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of
united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an
agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as
the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum
global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its
inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent
catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to
voice their concern about this reversal in commitment.
Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable
PREAMBLE
Whereas,
There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to
suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change,
representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small
Island Developing States (SIDS),
And
Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and
adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that
directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all
03 A Bangladesh Civil Society Declaration on Climate Change Negotiation 02
development. On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as
demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can
not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable
emission of GHGs.
Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration
by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have
vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and
thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or
developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among
the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path
and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS
and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting
the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future
citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the
advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who
have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must
vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD
seeking LDCs and SIDS.
Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for
Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the
low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees
Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is
still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs,
provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than
later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which
needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs
and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the
provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have
acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green
house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than
1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to
internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential.
Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make
their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on
limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a
legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet
equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present.
Afirmations
1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses
to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities
2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum
for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act
together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate
change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people
of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in
order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the
nation can proceed unhindered.
energy production, consumption, transformation and transport
without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens.
Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of
sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued
wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to
Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival.
Survival is non-negotiable;
4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in
a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of
the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an
accompanying implementation package deemed adequate;
5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable
manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and
course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be
in place and be an integral part of the LBA;
6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for
aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation,
adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a
seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020
ambition;
7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the
priority depending on national circumstances as well as the
importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without
prejudice to the Convention process;
8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate
inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing
countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as
leveraging more investments from the private sector;
9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential.
Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a
requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN
Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic
negotiations need to be undertaken;
10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with
the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to
go about such national legislation process and may provide
capacity-building support for the purpose.
B. Shared Vision
1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency
and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global
average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the
pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas
Demands
A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP
After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the
negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new
Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and
be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of
pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020
ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction
efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will
determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the
implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and
architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period.
No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the
said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal
impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since
climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food
insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be
legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as
treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception.
Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for
discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking
with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of
1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and
by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their
consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship
with global peaking.
Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are
as follows:
1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required
support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the
lead based on CBDR&RC;
2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to
their different national circumstances such as level of development,
natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and
appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the
means of implementation (inance, technology development and
transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries
that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The
commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also
be an integral element of the LBA.
3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do
so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of
CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable
development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources
as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to
D. Adaptation
1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with
those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected
communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the
tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined
by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and
desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional
and capacity-building support;
2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact
will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far.
Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively
designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be
obvious now and will require smart planning, design and
implementation process for which capacity of the countries including
inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need
for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for
technology development would have to be supported.
3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The
present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical
relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single
period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised
differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only
the lower bound of the costs of adaptation.
4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally
and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take
decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing
experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on
adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a
multi-stage process and required international support has to be
tailored and monitored accordingly.
E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism
Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be
avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good
through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the
entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts.
While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of
loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and
damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any
case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and
damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we
make the following points:
1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be
lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk
reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to
recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism
emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than
2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined
by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of
GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering
is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be
different for developing countries based upon full realization of the
principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may
have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global
peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect
from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that
by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990
baseline;
2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all
aspects of global and national management of climate change in
particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and
compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive
to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones
(subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering
to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so
shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in
global capability scale.
C. Mitigation
1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action
that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their
emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline
levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the
aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by
2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as
individual nations as well as a group.
A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020
target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that
the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction
targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been
encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged
to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also
jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly.
2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary
actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective
capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon
Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate
sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries
should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher
capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They
have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020.
community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising
and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D
capacity in countries.
1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and
transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate
prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race,
ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to
further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS.
2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially
acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training,
development and diffusion.
3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from
each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly
in case of adaptation in similar environment.
4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the
access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies,
recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get
preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements
such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has
to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard,
the very long term nature of climate change impact and the
consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term
arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other
multilateral arrangements.
5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation
and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent
manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready
with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and
capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs
to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on
how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs.
G. Agriculture
1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global
negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no
country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run
particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and
there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such
synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically
investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability
assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP
decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various
agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what
extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global
good without compromising global and national food security. Country
and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the
loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss
and damage.
2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and
consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare
that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected
from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries.
Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay
principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as
well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable
development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative
interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes
may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained
from external sources on account of compensation should go to the
government account with the condition that this would be utilized for
a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change
related loss and damage, including related insurance premium.
3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow
from the country or community receiving such insurance covers.
4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable
countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past
loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying
risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such
estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will
guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future
loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may
come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of
mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of
L&D before entering into Paris Agreement.
5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for
immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial
funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event.
6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and
inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in
the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created
immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past
loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever
so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on
LDCs and SIDS.
F. Technology Transfer and Development
Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology
action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well
as domestic technology development. These processes should be
country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as
national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at
Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in
their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports.
H. Migration
1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a
household response mechanism in absence of other viable
opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the
preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option.
Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced
displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour
migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related
negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of
climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated
compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all
relevant discussions.
2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable
alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social
well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This
must be the irst option for the affected country and the
international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and
otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised.
Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to
relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own
countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand
to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate
livelihood restoration through robust adaptation.
3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we
demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an
appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing
with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational.
An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with
human dignity.
I. Capacity Building
1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people,
Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and
implementation of development policies and practices. While this
needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate
resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term
capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi
Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the
existing ones with enhanced capacity.
2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and
capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for
capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop
projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise
engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of
capacity/capability along with the national capacity.
J. Finance
In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and
adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently
through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance
must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there
are several important issues related to inance which must receive
immediate attention. These are as follows:
1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs
and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested
and successful climate change resilient technologies, for
adaptation and mitigation, in those countries.
2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to,
and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of
the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the
appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full.
3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during
the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other
countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges
particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre
and post-2020 funding arrangements.
4. Developed countries should submit information on their
strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support
provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance
under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge;
5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on
pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling
environments should be continued given the escalating need for
inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should
prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial
lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource
mobilisation efforts.
6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the
architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of
all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the
LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between
the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one
from the other. These become crucial for further development of
the Green Climate Fund.
7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology
development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and
the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in
relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly
support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage.
Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may
not be enough and private investments will be necessary.
As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made,
mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may
be available. But wherever private funds may not be available,
public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private
investment must not result in climate colonialism through net
outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into
consideration the realised beneits of the investments.
8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand
on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be
burdened further with other demands such as compensatory
grants for recouping past loss and damage.
9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and
private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory
mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation
principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to
economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and
transparency for the private sector to follow.
We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a
successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes
of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective
LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns
and our support will always be with your people.
sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries
development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment
of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race,
colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status;
The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process
in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from
natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human
dignity;
And
Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and
limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many
developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably
acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement;
And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS
having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon
them as well as the globe.
We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of
Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities
(CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone
of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central
role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as
relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so
far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency
and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We
need to initiate stronger and proactive actions.
Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing
when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the
same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that
our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general
interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is,
therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent
stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations
more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our
collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will
stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS
in this respect.
We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have
recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas
emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of
united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an
agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as
the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum
global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its
inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent
catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to
voice their concern about this reversal in commitment.
Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable
PREAMBLE
Whereas,
There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to
suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change,
representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small
Island Developing States (SIDS),
And
Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and
adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that
directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all
05 A Bangladesh Civil Society Declaration on Climate Change Negotiation 04
development. On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as
demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can
not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable
emission of GHGs.
Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration
by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have
vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and
thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or
developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among
the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path
and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS
and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting
the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future
citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the
advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who
have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must
vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD
seeking LDCs and SIDS.
Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for
Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the
low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees
Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is
still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs,
provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than
later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which
needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs
and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the
provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have
acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green
house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than
1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to
internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential.
Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make
their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on
limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a
legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet
equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present.
Afirmations
1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses
to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities
2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum
for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act
together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate
change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people
of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in
order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the
nation can proceed unhindered.
energy production, consumption, transformation and transport
without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens.
Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of
sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued
wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to
Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival.
Survival is non-negotiable;
4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in
a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of
the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an
accompanying implementation package deemed adequate;
5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable
manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and
course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be
in place and be an integral part of the LBA;
6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for
aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation,
adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a
seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020
ambition;
7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the
priority depending on national circumstances as well as the
importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without
prejudice to the Convention process;
8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate
inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing
countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as
leveraging more investments from the private sector;
9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential.
Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a
requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN
Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic
negotiations need to be undertaken;
10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with
the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to
go about such national legislation process and may provide
capacity-building support for the purpose.
B. Shared Vision
1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency
and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global
average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the
pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas
Demands
A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP
After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the
negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new
Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and
be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of
pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020
ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction
efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will
determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the
implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and
architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period.
No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the
said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal
impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since
climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food
insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be
legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as
treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception.
Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for
discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking
with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of
1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and
by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their
consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship
with global peaking.
Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are
as follows:
1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required
support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the
lead based on CBDR&RC;
2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to
their different national circumstances such as level of development,
natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and
appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the
means of implementation (inance, technology development and
transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries
that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The
commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also
be an integral element of the LBA.
3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do
so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of
CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable
development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources
as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to
D. Adaptation
1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with
those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected
communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the
tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined
by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and
desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional
and capacity-building support;
2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact
will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far.
Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively
designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be
obvious now and will require smart planning, design and
implementation process for which capacity of the countries including
inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need
for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for
technology development would have to be supported.
3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The
present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical
relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single
period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised
differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only
the lower bound of the costs of adaptation.
4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally
and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take
decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing
experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on
adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a
multi-stage process and required international support has to be
tailored and monitored accordingly.
E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism
Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be
avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good
through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the
entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts.
While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of
loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and
damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any
case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and
damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we
make the following points:
1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be
lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk
reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to
recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism
emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than
2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined
by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of
GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering
is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be
different for developing countries based upon full realization of the
principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may
have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global
peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect
from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that
by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990
baseline;
2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all
aspects of global and national management of climate change in
particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and
compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive
to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones
(subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering
to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so
shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in
global capability scale.
C. Mitigation
1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action
that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their
emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline
levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the
aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by
2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as
individual nations as well as a group.
A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020
target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that
the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction
targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been
encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged
to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also
jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly.
2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary
actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective
capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon
Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate
sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries
should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher
capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They
have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020.
community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising
and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D
capacity in countries.
1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and
transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate
prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race,
ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to
further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS.
2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially
acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training,
development and diffusion.
3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from
each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly
in case of adaptation in similar environment.
4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the
access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies,
recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get
preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements
such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has
to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard,
the very long term nature of climate change impact and the
consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term
arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other
multilateral arrangements.
5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation
and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent
manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready
with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and
capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs
to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on
how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs.
G. Agriculture
1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global
negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no
country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run
particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and
there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such
synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically
investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability
assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP
decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various
agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what
extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global
good without compromising global and national food security. Country
and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the
loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss
and damage.
2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and
consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare
that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected
from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries.
Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay
principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as
well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable
development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative
interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes
may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained
from external sources on account of compensation should go to the
government account with the condition that this would be utilized for
a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change
related loss and damage, including related insurance premium.
3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow
from the country or community receiving such insurance covers.
4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable
countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past
loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying
risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such
estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will
guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future
loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may
come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of
mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of
L&D before entering into Paris Agreement.
5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for
immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial
funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event.
6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and
inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in
the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created
immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past
loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever
so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on
LDCs and SIDS.
F. Technology Transfer and Development
Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology
action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well
as domestic technology development. These processes should be
country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as
national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at
Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in
their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports.
H. Migration
1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a
household response mechanism in absence of other viable
opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the
preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option.
Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced
displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour
migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related
negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of
climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated
compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all
relevant discussions.
2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable
alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social
well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This
must be the irst option for the affected country and the
international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and
otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised.
Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to
relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own
countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand
to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate
livelihood restoration through robust adaptation.
3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we
demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an
appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing
with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational.
An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with
human dignity.
I. Capacity Building
1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people,
Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and
implementation of development policies and practices. While this
needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate
resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term
capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi
Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the
existing ones with enhanced capacity.
2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and
capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for
capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop
projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise
engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of
capacity/capability along with the national capacity.
J. Finance
In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and
adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently
through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance
must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there
are several important issues related to inance which must receive
immediate attention. These are as follows:
1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs
and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested
and successful climate change resilient technologies, for
adaptation and mitigation, in those countries.
2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to,
and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of
the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the
appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full.
3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during
the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other
countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges
particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre
and post-2020 funding arrangements.
4. Developed countries should submit information on their
strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support
provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance
under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge;
5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on
pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling
environments should be continued given the escalating need for
inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should
prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial
lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource
mobilisation efforts.
6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the
architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of
all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the
LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between
the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one
from the other. These become crucial for further development of
the Green Climate Fund.
7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology
development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and
the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in
relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly
support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage.
Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may
not be enough and private investments will be necessary.
As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made,
mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may
be available. But wherever private funds may not be available,
public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private
investment must not result in climate colonialism through net
outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into
consideration the realised beneits of the investments.
8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand
on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be
burdened further with other demands such as compensatory
grants for recouping past loss and damage.
9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and
private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory
mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation
principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to
economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and
transparency for the private sector to follow.
We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a
successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes
of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective
LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns
and our support will always be with your people.
sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries
development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment
of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race,
colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status;
The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process
in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from
natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human
dignity;
And
Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and
limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many
developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably
acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement;
And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS
having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon
them as well as the globe.
We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of
Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities
(CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone
of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central
role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as
relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so
far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency
and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We
need to initiate stronger and proactive actions.
Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing
when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the
same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that
our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general
interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is,
therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent
stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations
more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our
collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will
stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS
in this respect.
We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have
recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas
emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of
united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an
agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as
the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum
global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its
inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent
catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to
voice their concern about this reversal in commitment.
Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable
PREAMBLE
Whereas,
There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to
suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change,
representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small
Island Developing States (SIDS),
And
Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and
adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that
directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all
07 A Bangladesh Civil Society Declaration on Climate Change Negotiation 06
development. On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as
demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can
not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable
emission of GHGs.
Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration
by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have
vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and
thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or
developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among
the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path
and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS
and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting
the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future
citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the
advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who
have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must
vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD
seeking LDCs and SIDS.
Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for
Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the
low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees
Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is
still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs,
provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than
later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which
needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs
and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the
provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have
acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green
house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than
1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to
internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential.
Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make
their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on
limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a
legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet
equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present.
Afirmations
1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses
to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities
2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum
for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act
together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate
change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people
of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in
order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the
nation can proceed unhindered.
energy production, consumption, transformation and transport
without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens.
Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of
sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued
wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to
Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival.
Survival is non-negotiable;
4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in
a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of
the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an
accompanying implementation package deemed adequate;
5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable
manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and
course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be
in place and be an integral part of the LBA;
6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for
aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation,
adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a
seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020
ambition;
7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the
priority depending on national circumstances as well as the
importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without
prejudice to the Convention process;
8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate
inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing
countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as
leveraging more investments from the private sector;
9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential.
Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a
requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN
Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic
negotiations need to be undertaken;
10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with
the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to
go about such national legislation process and may provide
capacity-building support for the purpose.
B. Shared Vision
1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency
and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global
average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the
pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas
Demands
A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP
After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the
negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new
Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and
be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of
pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020
ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction
efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will
determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the
implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and
architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period.
No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the
said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal
impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since
climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food
insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be
legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as
treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception.
Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for
discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking
with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of
1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and
by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their
consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship
with global peaking.
Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are
as follows:
1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required
support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the
lead based on CBDR&RC;
2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to
their different national circumstances such as level of development,
natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and
appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the
means of implementation (inance, technology development and
transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries
that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The
commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also
be an integral element of the LBA.
3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do
so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of
CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable
development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources
as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to
D. Adaptation
1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with
those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected
communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the
tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined
by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and
desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional
and capacity-building support;
2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact
will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far.
Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively
designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be
obvious now and will require smart planning, design and
implementation process for which capacity of the countries including
inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need
for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for
technology development would have to be supported.
3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The
present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical
relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single
period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised
differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only
the lower bound of the costs of adaptation.
4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally
and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take
decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing
experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on
adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a
multi-stage process and required international support has to be
tailored and monitored accordingly.
E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism
Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be
avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good
through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the
entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts.
While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of
loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and
damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any
case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and
damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we
make the following points:
1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be
lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk
reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to
recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism
emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than
2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined
by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of
GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering
is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be
different for developing countries based upon full realization of the
principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may
have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global
peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect
from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that
by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990
baseline;
2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all
aspects of global and national management of climate change in
particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and
compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive
to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones
(subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering
to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so
shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in
global capability scale.
C. Mitigation
1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action
that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their
emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline
levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the
aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by
2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as
individual nations as well as a group.
A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020
target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that
the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction
targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been
encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged
to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also
jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly.
2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary
actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective
capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon
Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate
sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries
should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher
capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They
have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020.
community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising
and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D
capacity in countries.
1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and
transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate
prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race,
ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to
further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS.
2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially
acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training,
development and diffusion.
3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from
each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly
in case of adaptation in similar environment.
4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the
access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies,
recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get
preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements
such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has
to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard,
the very long term nature of climate change impact and the
consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term
arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other
multilateral arrangements.
5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation
and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent
manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready
with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and
capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs
to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on
how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs.
G. Agriculture
1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global
negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no
country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run
particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and
there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such
synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically
investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability
assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP
decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various
agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what
extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global
good without compromising global and national food security. Country
and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the
loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss
and damage.
2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and
consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare
that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected
from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries.
Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay
principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as
well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable
development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative
interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes
may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained
from external sources on account of compensation should go to the
government account with the condition that this would be utilized for
a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change
related loss and damage, including related insurance premium.
3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow
from the country or community receiving such insurance covers.
4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable
countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past
loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying
risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such
estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will
guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future
loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may
come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of
mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of
L&D before entering into Paris Agreement.
5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for
immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial
funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event.
6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and
inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in
the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created
immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past
loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever
so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on
LDCs and SIDS.
F. Technology Transfer and Development
Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology
action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well
as domestic technology development. These processes should be
country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as
national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at
Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in
their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports.
H. Migration
1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a
household response mechanism in absence of other viable
opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the
preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option.
Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced
displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour
migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related
negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of
climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated
compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all
relevant discussions.
2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable
alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social
well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This
must be the irst option for the affected country and the
international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and
otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised.
Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to
relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own
countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand
to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate
livelihood restoration through robust adaptation.
3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we
demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an
appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing
with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational.
An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with
human dignity.
I. Capacity Building
1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people,
Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and
implementation of development policies and practices. While this
needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate
resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term
capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi
Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the
existing ones with enhanced capacity.
2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and
capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for
capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop
projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise
engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of
capacity/capability along with the national capacity.
J. Finance
In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and
adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently
through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance
must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there
are several important issues related to inance which must receive
immediate attention. These are as follows:
1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs
and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested
and successful climate change resilient technologies, for
adaptation and mitigation, in those countries.
2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to,
and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of
the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the
appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full.
3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during
the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other
countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges
particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre
and post-2020 funding arrangements.
4. Developed countries should submit information on their
strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support
provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance
under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge;
5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on
pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling
environments should be continued given the escalating need for
inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should
prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial
lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource
mobilisation efforts.
6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the
architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of
all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the
LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between
the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one
from the other. These become crucial for further development of
the Green Climate Fund.
7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology
development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and
the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in
relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly
support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage.
Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may
not be enough and private investments will be necessary.
As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made,
mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may
be available. But wherever private funds may not be available,
public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private
investment must not result in climate colonialism through net
outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into
consideration the realised beneits of the investments.
8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand
on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be
burdened further with other demands such as compensatory
grants for recouping past loss and damage.
9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and
private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory
mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation
principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to
economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and
transparency for the private sector to follow.
We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a
successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes
of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective
LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns
and our support will always be with your people.
sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries
development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment
of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race,
colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status;
The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process
in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from
natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human
dignity;
And
Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and
limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many
developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably
acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement;
And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS
having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon
them as well as the globe.
We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of
Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities
(CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone
of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central
role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as
relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so
far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency
and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We
need to initiate stronger and proactive actions.
Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing
when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the
same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that
our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general
interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is,
therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent
stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations
more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our
collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will
stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS
in this respect.
We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have
recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas
emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of
united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an
agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as
the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum
global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its
inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent
catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to
voice their concern about this reversal in commitment.
Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable
PREAMBLE
Whereas,
There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to
suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change,
representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small
Island Developing States (SIDS),
And
Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and
adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that
directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all
09 A Bangladesh Civil Society Declaration on Climate Change Negotiation 08
development. On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as
demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can
not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable
emission of GHGs.
Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration
by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have
vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and
thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or
developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among
the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path
and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS
and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting
the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future
citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the
advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who
have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must
vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD
seeking LDCs and SIDS.
Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for
Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the
low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees
Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is
still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs,
provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than
later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which
needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs
and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the
provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have
acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green
house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than
1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to
internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential.
Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make
their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on
limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a
legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet
equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present.
Afirmations
1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses
to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities
2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum
for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act
together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate
change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people
of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in
order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the
nation can proceed unhindered.
energy production, consumption, transformation and transport
without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens.
Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of
sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued
wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to
Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival.
Survival is non-negotiable;
4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in
a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of
the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an
accompanying implementation package deemed adequate;
5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable
manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and
course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be
in place and be an integral part of the LBA;
6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for
aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation,
adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a
seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020
ambition;
7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the
priority depending on national circumstances as well as the
importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without
prejudice to the Convention process;
8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate
inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing
countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as
leveraging more investments from the private sector;
9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential.
Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a
requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN
Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic
negotiations need to be undertaken;
10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with
the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to
go about such national legislation process and may provide
capacity-building support for the purpose.
B. Shared Vision
1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency
and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global
average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the
pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas
Demands
A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP
After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the
negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new
Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and
be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of
pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020
ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction
efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will
determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the
implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and
architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period.
No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the
said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal
impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since
climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food
insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be
legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as
treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception.
Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for
discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking
with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of
1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and
by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their
consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship
with global peaking.
Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are
as follows:
1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required
support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the
lead based on CBDR&RC;
2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to
their different national circumstances such as level of development,
natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and
appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the
means of implementation (inance, technology development and
transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries
that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The
commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also
be an integral element of the LBA.
3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do
so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of
CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable
development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources
as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to
D. Adaptation
1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with
those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected
communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the
tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined
by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and
desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional
and capacity-building support;
2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact
will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far.
Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively
designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be
obvious now and will require smart planning, design and
implementation process for which capacity of the countries including
inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need
for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for
technology development would have to be supported.
3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The
present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical
relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single
period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised
differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only
the lower bound of the costs of adaptation.
4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally
and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take
decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing
experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on
adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a
multi-stage process and required international support has to be
tailored and monitored accordingly.
E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism
Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be
avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good
through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the
entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts.
While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of
loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and
damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any
case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and
damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we
make the following points:
1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be
lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk
reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to
recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism
emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than
2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined
by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of
GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering
is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be
different for developing countries based upon full realization of the
principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may
have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global
peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect
from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that
by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990
baseline;
2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all
aspects of global and national management of climate change in
particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and
compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive
to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones
(subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering
to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so
shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in
global capability scale.
C. Mitigation
1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action
that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their
emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline
levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the
aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by
2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as
individual nations as well as a group.
A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020
target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that
the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction
targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been
encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged
to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also
jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly.
2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary
actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective
capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon
Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate
sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries
should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher
capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They
have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020.
community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising
and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D
capacity in countries.
1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and
transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate
prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race,
ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to
further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS.
2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially
acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training,
development and diffusion.
3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from
each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly
in case of adaptation in similar environment.
4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the
access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies,
recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get
preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements
such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has
to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard,
the very long term nature of climate change impact and the
consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term
arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other
multilateral arrangements.
5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation
and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent
manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready
with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and
capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs
to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on
how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs.
G. Agriculture
1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global
negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no
country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run
particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and
there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such
synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically
investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability
assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP
decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various
agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what
extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global
good without compromising global and national food security. Country
and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the
loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss
and damage.
2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and
consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare
that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected
from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries.
Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay
principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as
well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable
development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative
interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes
may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained
from external sources on account of compensation should go to the
government account with the condition that this would be utilized for
a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change
related loss and damage, including related insurance premium.
3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow
from the country or community receiving such insurance covers.
4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable
countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past
loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying
risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such
estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will
guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future
loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may
come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of
mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of
L&D before entering into Paris Agreement.
5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for
immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial
funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event.
6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and
inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in
the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created
immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past
loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever
so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on
LDCs and SIDS.
F. Technology Transfer and Development
Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology
action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well
as domestic technology development. These processes should be
country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as
national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at
Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in
their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports.
H. Migration
1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a
household response mechanism in absence of other viable
opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the
preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option.
Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced
displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour
migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related
negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of
climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated
compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all
relevant discussions.
2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable
alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social
well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This
must be the irst option for the affected country and the
international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and
otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised.
Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to
relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own
countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand
to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate
livelihood restoration through robust adaptation.
3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we
demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an
appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing
with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational.
An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with
human dignity.
I. Capacity Building
1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people,
Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and
implementation of development policies and practices. While this
needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate
resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term
capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi
Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the
existing ones with enhanced capacity.
2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and
capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for
capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop
projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise
engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of
capacity/capability along with the national capacity.
J. Finance
In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and
adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently
through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance
must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there
are several important issues related to inance which must receive
immediate attention. These are as follows:
1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs
and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested
and successful climate change resilient technologies, for
adaptation and mitigation, in those countries.
2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to,
and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of
the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the
appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full.
3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during
the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other
countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges
particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre
and post-2020 funding arrangements.
4. Developed countries should submit information on their
strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support
provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance
under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge;
5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on
pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling
environments should be continued given the escalating need for
inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should
prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial
lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource
mobilisation efforts.
6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the
architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of
all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the
LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between
the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one
from the other. These become crucial for further development of
the Green Climate Fund.
7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology
development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and
the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in
relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly
support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage.
Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may
not be enough and private investments will be necessary.
As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made,
mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may
be available. But wherever private funds may not be available,
public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private
investment must not result in climate colonialism through net
outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into
consideration the realised beneits of the investments.
8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand
on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be
burdened further with other demands such as compensatory
grants for recouping past loss and damage.
9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and
private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory
mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation
principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to
economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and
transparency for the private sector to follow.
We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a
successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes
of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective
LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns
and our support will always be with your people.
sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries
development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment
of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race,
colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status;
The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process
in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from
natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human
dignity;
And
Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and
limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many
developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably
acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement;
And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS
having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon
them as well as the globe.
We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of
Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities
(CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone
of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central
role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as
relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so
far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency
and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We
need to initiate stronger and proactive actions.
Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing
when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the
same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that
our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general
interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is,
therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent
stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations
more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our
collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will
stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS
in this respect.
We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have
recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas
emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of
united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an
agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as
the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum
global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its
inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent
catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to
voice their concern about this reversal in commitment.
Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable
PREAMBLE
Whereas,
There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to
suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change,
representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small
Island Developing States (SIDS),
And
Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and
adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that
directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all
11 A Bangladesh Civil Society Declaration on Climate Change Negotiation 10
CSRL Secretariat: House 4, Road 3, Block I, Banani, Dhaka 1213, Bangladesh
Phone : +880 2 8813607-9, 8824440 Fax : +880 2 8817402 Web: www.csrlbd.org
development. On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as
demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can
not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable
emission of GHGs.
Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration
by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have
vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and
thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or
developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among
the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path
and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS
and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting
the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future
citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the
advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who
have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must
vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD
seeking LDCs and SIDS.
Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for
Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the
low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees
Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is
still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs,
provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than
later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which
needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs
and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the
provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have
acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green
house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than
1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to
internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential.
Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make
their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on
limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a
legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet
equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present.
Afirmations
1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses
to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities
2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum
for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act
together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate
change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people
of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in
order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the
nation can proceed unhindered.
energy production, consumption, transformation and transport
without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens.
Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of
sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued
wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to
Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival.
Survival is non-negotiable;
4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in
a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of
the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an
accompanying implementation package deemed adequate;
5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable
manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and
course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be
in place and be an integral part of the LBA;
6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for
aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation,
adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a
seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020
ambition;
7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the
priority depending on national circumstances as well as the
importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without
prejudice to the Convention process;
8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate
inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing
countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as
leveraging more investments from the private sector;
9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential.
Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a
requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN
Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic
negotiations need to be undertaken;
10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with
the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to
go about such national legislation process and may provide
capacity-building support for the purpose.
B. Shared Vision
1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency
and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric
greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global
average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the
pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas
Demands
A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP
After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the
negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new
Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and
be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of
pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020
ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction
efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will
determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the
implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and
architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period.
No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the
said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal
impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since
climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food
insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be
legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as
treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception.
Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for
discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking
with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of
1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and
by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their
consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship
with global peaking.
Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are
as follows:
1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required
support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the
lead based on CBDR&RC;
2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to
their different national circumstances such as level of development,
natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and
appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the
means of implementation (inance, technology development and
transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries
that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The
commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also
be an integral element of the LBA.
3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do
so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of
CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable
development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources
as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to
D. Adaptation
1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with
those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected
communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the
tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined
by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and
desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional
and capacity-building support;
2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact
will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far.
Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively
designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be
obvious now and will require smart planning, design and
implementation process for which capacity of the countries including
inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need
for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for
technology development would have to be supported.
3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The
present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical
relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single
period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised
differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only
the lower bound of the costs of adaptation.
4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally
and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take
decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing
experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on
adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a
multi-stage process and required international support has to be
tailored and monitored accordingly.
E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism
Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be
avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good
through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the
entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts.
While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of
loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and
damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any
case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and
damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we
make the following points:
1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be
lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk
reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to
recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism
emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than
2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined
by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of
GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering
is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be
different for developing countries based upon full realization of the
principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may
have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global
peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect
from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that
by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990
baseline;
2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all
aspects of global and national management of climate change in
particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and
compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive
to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones
(subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering
to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so
shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in
global capability scale.
C. Mitigation
1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action
that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their
emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline
levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the
aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by
2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as
individual nations as well as a group.
A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020
target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that
the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction
targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been
encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged
to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also
jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly.
2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary
actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective
capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon
Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate
sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries
should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher
capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They
have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020.
community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising
and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D
capacity in countries.
1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and
transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate
prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race,
ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to
further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS.
2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially
acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training,
development and diffusion.
3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from
each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly
in case of adaptation in similar environment.
4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the
access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies,
recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get
preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements
such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has
to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard,
the very long term nature of climate change impact and the
consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term
arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other
multilateral arrangements.
5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation
and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent
manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready
with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and
capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs
to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on
how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs.
G. Agriculture
1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global
negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no
country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run
particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and
there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such
synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically
investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability
assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP
decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various
agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what
extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global
good without compromising global and national food security. Country
and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the
loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss
and damage.
2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and
consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare
that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected
from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries.
Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay
principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as
well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable
development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative
interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes
may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained
from external sources on account of compensation should go to the
government account with the condition that this would be utilized for
a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change
related loss and damage, including related insurance premium.
3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow
from the country or community receiving such insurance covers.
4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable
countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past
loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying
risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such
estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will
guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future
loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may
come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of
mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of
L&D before entering into Paris Agreement.
5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for
immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial
funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event.
6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and
inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in
the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created
immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past
loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever
so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on
LDCs and SIDS.
F. Technology Transfer and Development
Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology
action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well
as domestic technology development. These processes should be
country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as
national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at
Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in
their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports.
H. Migration
1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a
household response mechanism in absence of other viable
opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the
preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option.
Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced
displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour
migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related
negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of
climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated
compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all
relevant discussions.
2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable
alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social
well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This
must be the irst option for the affected country and the
international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and
otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised.
Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to
relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own
countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand
to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate
livelihood restoration through robust adaptation.
3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we
demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an
appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing
with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational.
An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with
human dignity.
I. Capacity Building
1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people,
Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and
implementation of development policies and practices. While this
needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate
resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term
capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi
Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the
existing ones with enhanced capacity.
2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and
capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for
capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop
projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise
engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of
capacity/capability along with the national capacity.
J. Finance
In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and
adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently
through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance
must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there
are several important issues related to inance which must receive
immediate attention. These are as follows:
1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs
and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested
and successful climate change resilient technologies, for
adaptation and mitigation, in those countries.
2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to,
and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of
the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the
appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full.
3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during
the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other
countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges
particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre
and post-2020 funding arrangements.
4. Developed countries should submit information on their
strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support
provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance
under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge;
5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on
pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling
environments should be continued given the escalating need for
inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should
prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial
lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource
mobilisation efforts.
6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the
architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of
all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the
LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between
the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one
from the other. These become crucial for further development of
the Green Climate Fund.
7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology
development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and
the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in
relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly
support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage.
Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may
not be enough and private investments will be necessary.
As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made,
mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may
be available. But wherever private funds may not be available,
public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private
investment must not result in climate colonialism through net
outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into
consideration the realised beneits of the investments.
8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand
on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be
burdened further with other demands such as compensatory
grants for recouping past loss and damage.
9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring
and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and
private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory
mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation
principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to
economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and
transparency for the private sector to follow.
We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a
successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes
of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective
LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns
and our support will always be with your people.
sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries
development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment
of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race,
colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status;
The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process
in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from
natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human
dignity;
And
Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and
limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many
developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably
acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement;
And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS
having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon
them as well as the globe.
We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of
Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities
(CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone
of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central
role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as
relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so
far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency
and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We
need to initiate stronger and proactive actions.
Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing
when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the
same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that
our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general
interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is,
therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent
stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations
more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our
collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will
stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS
in this respect.
We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have
recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas
emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of
united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an
agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as
the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum
global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its
inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent
catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to
voice their concern about this reversal in commitment.
Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable
Disclaimer: This publication has been produced with the inancial aid of European Union and Oxfam. The views
expressed herein should not be taken in any way to relect the oficial opinion of the European Union or Oxfam.
Collaboration with
Tis project is implemented by Oxfam and Oxfam led alliance CSRL
Photo courtesy Oxfam Date of Publication November 2013
PREAMBLE
Whereas,
There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to
suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change,
representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small
Island Developing States (SIDS),
And
Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and
adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that
directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all