It’s Getting Hot In Here

The past few days I have followed the discussions of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI). Their discussions have been concerned with several issues, capacity building under the protocol, an amendment relating to compliance, the international transaction log (ITL), and several others. Perhaps the most contentious currently is the Adaptation Fund, what today’s ECO publication called a “vital instrument that can significantly assist developing countries reduce their vulnerabilities.”

The Adaptation Fund is a mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol that will receive resources generated by a 2% levy on CDM projects. Currently, the fund does not exist, and developing countries are mainly only receiving funding from volunteer donations to the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), which is aimed primarily at mitigation projects. The adaptation fund is a must-have and a must-have-soon, and parties are only now starting to move the dialogue forward.

At the Subsidiary Body meeting 24 (SB24) held at the secretariat in Bonn last Spring, the EU and The Group of 77 and China (G77/China) butted heads over the Fund and left it to this 25^th meeting of the SBI. In Bonn, the main division was whether the principles, modalities, and governance issues should be discussed before or after deciding upon an appropriate institution to manage the fund. The EU felt strongly that not only should they decide on an institution, but that it should be the Global Environment Facility (GEF) because it already had experience managing funds through the UNFCCC, and in particular a priority on adaptation. The G77, led by the Philippine delegation, firmly refused this direction, and held their ground. Developing countries have not been impressed by the GEF’s performance, and did not want to give them free reign to influence the procedural aspects of the fund. The parties reached a stalemate and deferred the discussion to their meeting yesterday, November 8^th.

Chair Becker opened the floor to interventions on the topic and parties began throwing salvos in remembrance of Bonn. The chair allowed parties to make statements for long enough to be sure that no one had changed their position, and then interrupted to remind them of the course of Bonn, and that they were not going to be doing that again under his watch. The remaining statements did little to move the discussion forward until a contact group was called for by the chair with a view to discussing the principles, modalities and governance before determining the institution.

The contact group met this morning, and though my eyes were heavy, I was able to glimpse the light at the end of the tunnel. The draft document prepared has a host of options (for some articles, as many as 6), but the parties were generally cooperative in moving forward, with the EU loosening its stance to accept the new direction. The coming weeks will hopefully bring forward progress on this issue, and I hope to be a part of the solution.

To begin working on this issue for real, I have made contact with the Climate Action Network (CAN) working group on adaptation. They are close to completing a position paper that will allow the CAN membership that is less familiar with the fund to lobby delegates with specific points. From now on, I will be covering as many SBI meetings as possible, and sharing information with the rest of the CAN group. It’s starting to feel like I’m doing something, however particulate…