This side event featured speakers from developing country Parties and civil society taking stock of the outcomes of the UN Climate Conference in Doha, Qatar, in December 2012, and assessed their views on the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP). Meena Raman, TWN, moderated the discussions.

Zou Ji, National Development and Reform Commission, China, discussed the criteria and principles of an equitable and effective 2015 architecture, including an agreement that is: environmentally effective; equitable for developing countries; economically efficient; institutionally and technically feasible; under the Convention and guided by it; contains targets and measures; and enhances action.

Naderev Saño, Climate Change Commission, the Philippines, said that the Philippines could work with the Doha package, which he defined as a set of decisions “better than what could have been.” Saño underscored the importance of the amendments to the Kyoto Protocol reached in Doha, but he questioned their meaningfulness considering that some Parties are withdrawing from the Protocol and others are not taking on commitments for the second commitment period.

Raising concerns about the gradual erosion of the multilateral system since Copenhagen, Ramiro Ramírez, Executive Director, Petróleos de Venezuela, said climate solutions cannot be left to markets and expressed worries about an emerging liberal approach attempting to take leadership away from states.

Sivan Kartha, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), focused on equity as a key issue for the success of the Convention. Tackling different indicators of equity, such as income, mitigation efforts and responsibility for historic emissions, he concluded that the duty to solve the problem lies among developed countries, while action needs to happen in developing countries.

Addressing the agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Arjun Kumar Karki, Least Developed Country (LDC) Watch, lamented that the LDC negotiators are “harassed” by their developed partners, who want to impose conditionalities upon LDCs. He condemned this behavior and stressed that this is an issue of life and death for LDCs who depend on this for most needed technologies and medicines.

During discussions, participants touched upon, inter alia, expected outcomes in the ADP with regards to safeguards.

Liu Qiang, Consultative Group of Experts on National Communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention (CGE) Member, China, moderated the session, which addressed the CGE mandate, highlights in fulfilling the mandate, and the CGE work programme for 2013. Qiang outlined that the CGE mandate is to provide technical advice and support to enhance the capacity of non-Annex I Parties to submit and prepare their national communications and biennial update reports (BURs).

Sangchan Limjirakan, CGE Member, Thailand, presented the highlights in fulfilling the CGE mandate, including holding nine regional hands-on training workshops for non-Annex I national experts between 2010 and 2012. She noted the work programme for 2013, as decided by the Conference of the Parties (COP) (Decision 18/CP.18), extended the CGE for one year and focused on BURs, and provided for follow-up to the 2010-2012 work programme and additional activities, including assessment of Parties needs for the preparation of BURs and organizing BUR training workshops.

Elan Strait, CGE Member, US, described the outcomes of a survey assessing the needs of non-Annex I Parties for producing BURs, which served as the basis for preparation of training materials covering: institutional arrangements for the preparation of BURs; mitigation actions and their affects; and constraints and gaps, and related financial, technical and capacity needs.

Qiang concluded the presentations outlining points including the challenge faced by the CGE to develop a work programme that meets the long-term requirements of non-Annex I Parties given the short time period. He underscored that expanding the mandate of the CGE has implications for the budget, noting the implementation of CGE activities are subject to the availability of resources. He reiterated that CGE members are committed to meeting the demand of implementing the CGE’s work programme.

During discussions, Strait noted that the training materials focus on the differences between national communications and BURs, since BURs are essentially a summary and update of national communications. Qiang, in conclusion, emphasized the value of the CGE for non-Annex I Parties in preparation of national communications and BURs.

This session moderated by Angela Churie Kallhauge, Adaptation Fund Board Member, Sweden, considered recent developments in projects and programmes financed by the Adaptation Fund in developing countries that are parties to the Kyoto Protocol and vulnerable to adverse effects of climate change. Kallhauge briefly addressed the characteristics of the Adaptation Fund, including partnerships among different organizations, civil society engagement, transparency, professionalism and dedication, and underlined challenges lying ahead.

Daouda Ben Oumar Ndiaye, Adaptation Fund Board Secretariat, reported on the goals of the Fund, linking them to current progress and achievements. He underscored that 15 National Implementing Entities (NIEs) and 10 Multilateral Implementing Entities (MIEs) are cooperating with the Fund, resulting in 28 adaptation projects. He addressed funding issues pointing out that while Certified Emission Reduction (CER) credits have been the Fund’s main revenue source, new resources are urgently needed. He emphasized lessons learned, inter alia: direct access allows national entities to successfully implement projects; efficient decision making is beneficial to developing countries seeking finance; focus on results means project successes and cost-effectiveness can be measured and demonstrated; and the commitment of the Fund and civil society engagement result in enhanced transparency.

Mandy Barnett, South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), presented the experiences and lessons from two South African projects. She noted that many agencies, including environmental affairs, national treasury, national planning commission and the adaptation network work together, enhancing synergies and avoiding duplication during project implementation. She underscored that direct access has enabled: high-level integration assisting the mainstreaming of climate change adaptation throughout South African development; investment in long-term institutional capacity; and provision of a coherent country-driven programme.

Sven Harmeling, Germanwatch, provided a civil society perspective on the Adaptation Fund and direct access as well as insights from Honduras. He underlined the Adaptation Fund Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) network, which targets local NGOs in the accredited countries through capacity building support. Focusing on the Honduras’ experience, he stressed important findings, inter alia: stakeholder and vulnerable groups should be involved from the outset; inter-institutional and multi-stakeholders coordination promotes transparency; and ownership is higher when a project has infrastructure components or tangible deliveries. He finally underscored the strategic importance of the Adaptation Fund together with pressing funding issues.

During discussions, participants stressed the Fund’s good record and popularity in the developing world and clarified issues concerning budget and co-financing, organizational matters on synergies and criteria for project choice.