Summary report, 6–7 December 2008

Poznań Development and Climate Days at COP 14 (D&C Days)

The “Development and Climate Days at COP 14” (D&C Days) event took place at the Sheraton Hotel, Poznań, Poland from 6-7 December 2008. D&C Days was held in parallel with the fourteenth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the fourth Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, which took place in Poland from 1-12 December 2008.

The event featured more than 30 speakers and numerous extended discussions and question-and-answer sessions. Over 300 participants attended the two-day meeting, including representatives of governments, international organizations, academia, research institutes, business and non-governmental organizations. D&C Days was organized by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), the RING alliance of policy research organizations, the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

The event was held in the context of a growing call for knowledge sharing on the links between climate change and development. The purpose was to provide a platform for individuals and organizations working on the issues of development and climate change to exchange experiences, share the latest science and best practices, and promote linkages between development and climate change. A film festival, showing short films relevant to the topics discussed, ran in parallel to the event, and organizers closed D&C Days with an evening banquet held at the Sheraton Hotel on Sunday, 7 December.

D&C Days at COP 14 was successful in facilitating discussions among a diverse array of speakers and participants, as well as in enabling information sharing and elucidating the complex relationships between climate change, adaptation and development.


Climate change is considered one of the most serious threats to sustainable development, with adverse impacts expected on the environment, human health, food security, economic activity, natural resources and physical infrastructure. Global climate varies naturally, but scientists agree that rising concentrations of anthropogenically-produced greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Earth’s atmosphere are leading to changes in the climate. Anthropogenic climate change is the result of increasing GHG emissions caused or influenced by development factors such as economic growth, technology, population and governance; and evidence of climate change impacts on both natural and human systems is increasing. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the effects of climate change have already been observed, and scientific findings indicate that precautionary and prompt action is necessary.

Until recently, climate change was viewed largely as an environmental concern, of little relevance to development policy makers or practitioners. Likewise, development approaches have been given less attention than technological and natural science approaches focusing on reducing GHG emissions.

Nevertheless, unsustainable development is the underlying cause of climate change, and development pathways will determine the degree to which social systems are vulnerable to climate change. Climate change will have direct impacts on development with regard to climate-sensitive activities such as agriculture and indirect consequences on social issues such as poverty and education. Furthermore, climate change is likely to exacerbate inequalities due to the uneven distribution of damages, since poor communities tend to live on marginal lands and in areas prone to extreme weather events. Alternative development pathways will influence the capacity of communities and countries to adapt to climate change and will also determine future GHG emissions. As such, development policy and practice must address climate change issues.

While mitigation has traditionally been the pivotal issue for many climate change experts, adaptation to the effects of climate change is now acknowledged as necessary for responding effectively and equitably to the impacts of both climate change and climate variability. Adaptation has been implicitly and explicitly linked with development-focused action, particularly as the IPCC has underscored that developing countries are disproportionately vulnerable to climate change and lack adaptive capacity, a notion that is especially important for developing countries with growing economies. Therefore, attention will need to be paid to issues of particular importance to these vulnerable groups, including the management of water and other natural resources, agricultural activities, and the sources and generation of energy.

D&C Days started as Adaptation Day in 2002 to discuss some of these issues. The Development Day was added in 2004 to bring in development practitioners who would not normally attend the UNFCCC negotiations, but had relevant information to share, and whose work might be influenced by the work of the climate change community. In 2007, the event was renamed Development and Climate Days to reflect that adaptation is now fairly well mainstreamed into the development agenda and good adaptation presupposes development. The 2007 event included panels on: disaster reduction and extreme weather events; cities; health; financing adaptation; food and agriculture; community-based adaptation; and communicating for communities across sectors and timescales.


Saleem Huq, IIED, opened Development and Climate Days on Saturday, 6 December, noting the growth of interest in adaptation issues since the 2002 Adaption Day in New Delhi, India.

Panel discussions and high-level sessions focusing on development aspects of climate change took place over the course of the two-day event. On Saturday, 6 December, sessions focused on vulnerable groups, and included panels on gender and climate change, children, Arctic and small island developing states (SIDS), as well as a high-level session on rights and justice. On Sunday, 7 December, panel sessions were held on policymaking in a changing climate, community-based adaptation, adaptation effectiveness, and a high-level session on funding adaptation. This report summarizes the days’ events.


GENDER AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Irene Dankelman, Women in Europe for a Common Future, explained that the panel would focus on the importance of considering gender in making climate change policy, and noted that the panel was organized by the Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) and the Global Gender Climate Alliance.

Presentations: Lorena Aguilar, IUCN, stressed that climate change and gender inequalities are inextricably linked and emphasized the importance of putting a human face on this linkage. She described how climate change will affect men and women differently in various countries, noting both direct and indirect effects on women, including the susceptibility of pregnant women to water-borne diseases. She concluded by emphasizing that: women are powerful agents of change; their empowerment should be a priority when undertaking adaptation and risk reduction strategies; and climate change is a global security and human rights issue.

Rachel Nampinga, Ecowatch Africa, spoke about the role of women in adaptation in Africa. She stressed that women – most of whom live below the poverty line in Africa – will bear a disproportionate amount of the burden of climate change impacts. She noted women will be heavily affected by climate change because they are primarily responsible for tasks such as food production and water gathering, and concluded that National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) should include a gender dimension.

Athena Peralta, World Council of Churches, the Philippines, presented on gender and financing in climate mitigation and adaptation. She described findings from a study on this topic conducted in cooperation with WEDO and the Heinrich Böll Foundation. She highlighted efforts to explore whether financing initiatives address the needs and priorities of the most vulnerable, including women, in the Philippines. Peralta argued that financing measures typically fail to consider gender and social costs, and called for distributing the financial burden of adaptation and mitigation according to the capacity-to-pay and polluter-pays principles.

Khamarunga Banda, National Farmer’s Union of South Africa and C-Image Consulting, discussed experiences of black farmers’ unions in South Africa. She noted that agricultural productivity is compromised by climate change and explained that while white commercial farmers own their own land, small-scale black farmers occupy communal land, which is typically overgrazed. She stressed that the issue of land reform is crucial and noted that women have less access to financial resources and land than men.

Discussion: In the ensuing discussion, one participant announced the upcoming launch of “Carbon Solidarity Asia,” a pool of expertise on climate change and energy issues intended to facilitate access to Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) funding. Participants also noted that: carbon investors tend to privilege large-scale projects; the UNFCCC should incorporate a gender strategy into climate change solutions; and demand-driven approaches to the provision of services are typically not responsive to gender issues.

For more information, contact: Cate Owren <>

CHILDREN AND CLIMATE CHANGE: Katy Oswald, Institute of Development Studies (IDS), introduced the session, which was organized by the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF)–UK and Children in a Changing Climate and dedicated to exploring ways to engage children in climate change activities and debates at international, national and local levels.

Presentations: David Parker, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, discussed the involvement of children in climate change action. He described children’s vulnerability to climate change and called for participatory skills-based approaches, as well as preparedness, rather than relief, measures. He also stressed the need for collaboration between the disaster-risk relief communities and those dedicated to women and children, and highlighted a plan of action on climate change and human rights that was introduced in the UN General Assembly by youth representatives. He concluded by describing a spectrum of activities that could foster youth participation in addressing climate change, such as: the incorporation of children and youth into adaptation planning; vocational training in activities that address environmental degradation; and the engagement of young people in politics and community activism.

Katy Oswald, IDS, introduced a video made by an Indonesian high-school student that discussed children’s involvement in climate change issues in Indonesia. The video explained climate impacts in Indonesia and measures that have involved children in climate change mitigation, such as biking to school initiatives and using recycled materials for musical instruments in a student percussion group.

Agus Purnomo, National Council on Climate Change, Indonesia, emphasized that children are one of the groups most affected by floods, variable rainfall and drought in Indonesia. He also noted that affected children participate in solving the problems caused by these disasters and stressed the role of the media in getting young people’s voices heard. He emphasized that adults have the obligation to ensure the safety of young people, and that young people have the right to decide their future.

Tamara Plush, IDS, described her research on participatory video initiatives, which, she explained, can be used as an action research tool to: build citizen capacity; access local knowledge related to climate change; and use such knowledge for advocacy. She highlighted concerns raised by children related to: deforestation; access to agricultural technology; lack of infrastructure and climate change knowledge; and the need for disaster risk reduction.

Discussion: In the ensuing discussion, participants highlighted: research on climate perceptions; vulnerabilities of homeless children; and challenges inherent in educating children. After a brainstorming session in small groups, the participants highlighted: the relevance of climate impacts to natural assets; the importance of developing learning tools and training teachers in their use; the consideration of educational alternatives for indigenous and pastoralist communities; and the need to link practitioners and policymakers.

For more information, contact: Lucy Stone <>

ARCTIC & SIDS AND CLIMATE CHANGE: John Crump, UN Environment Programme (UNEP)/GRID-Arendal, introduced the session, which highlighted the similarities between the Arctic and SIDS with respect to climate impacts on communities in these areas.

Presentations: Patricia Cochran, Inuit Circumpolar Council, discussed climate impacts on Arctic communities. She highlighted that seven coastal villages in Alaska have been identified for relocation, at a cost of US$200 million per village, and that another 12 may be identified in the next decade. She stressed that Arctic communities should not be seen as victims of climate change but rather as leaders who bring knowledge-based experience gained over centuries to the table.

Amb. Ronny Jumeau, Permanent Representative to the UN for the Seychelles, said that, given the threats of climate change, the fates of the Arctic and SIDS communities have never been so closely intertwined. He called for: limiting global warming to 1.5°C; peaking emissions in 2015; targets well below 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent; and Annex I GHG emissions reductions of more than 40% below 1990 levels by 2020 and more than 95% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Kenrick Leslie, Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre, argued for an upper limit on global warming at 1.5°C, and highlighted the loss of tropical reefs already underway. He described an adaptation programme in the region, highlighting pilot projects in Dominica, St. Lucia, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

Leanna Ellsworth, Inuit Circumpolar Council, noted that while the name of her ancestral land means “the land that never melts,” this year it has started melting. She highlighted the increasing threats that climate change poses to her community resulting from unusual warm temperatures and strong winds that, for example, have eroded the permafrost underneath a bridge that connects two adjacent villages.

Chief Bill Erasmus, Arctic Athabaskan Council, expressed his frustration and disappointment with the UN. He urged governments to ensure that indigenous people are included in the climate change talks and argued that they should be at the negotiating table by the fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC in Copenhagen.

Amb. Masao Nakayama, Permanent Representative to the UN for the Federated States of Micronesia, stressed the need to create political will to advance an agreement in Copenhagen. He described the Micronesia Challenge, an initiative that sets aside a system of protected areas, which he said was done in part to contribute to preservation of the world’s ecosystems. He argued that the world powers have not reciprocated in their contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Discussion: Participants considered: the conundrum between indigenous communities’ dependence on economic development realized through fossil fuel production on their lands, and the climate impacts on indigenous lands caused by global fossil fuel burning; adaptation needs in Haiti; and the need to focus on public education and communication in addition to policy development.

For more information, contact: John Crump <>

HIGH-LEVEL SESSION ON RIGHTS AND JUSTICE: Sivan Kartha, SEI, moderated the high-level session on human rights and justice and explained that the session would address the linkages between climate change, development and human rights by focusing on sustainable development pathways.

Presentations: Sivan Kartha, SEI, noted that human rights and justice are at the core of a potential deadlock in the climate change negotiations. He stressed the need to understand what type of regime could enable reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the South amidst an ongoing “development crisis,” and argued that access to energy services needs to be expanded without compromising the environment or developing countries’ prospects of growth.

Katarzyna Romanska Snyder, Expert Team of the Polish Climate Ambassador, argued that human rights provide an effective path for vulnerable groups to participate in climate change politics. Grounding her argument in the premise that planning and making informed decisions about one’s future is a human right, she highlighted three pathways through which human rights could be brought into climate change politics: participation rights, rights to information and legal standing rights.

Paul Crowley, Climate Law and Policy Project, discussed the relationship between climate change and human rights, and described a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the threats climate change poses to the Inuit. He urged participants to amend the goal of limiting warming to 2°C, given that such warming would make it difficult – if not impossible – for the Inuit to retain their culture and maintain ecosystem stability.

Father John Brinkman, Commission on Ecology and Religion, noted that when biodiversity and ecosystems disappear our humanity is compromised. He concluded by arguing that all humans have not only a need for, but also a right to enjoy a safe environment.

Kilaparti Ramakrishna, UNEP, described the history of incorporating human rights issues into the climate regime. He cautioned against defining climate change narrowly, yet underscored the complexity of broadening the scope of the problem. He concluded by stating that the interests of the poor need to be fully taken into account for the climate regime to succeed.

A. Atiq Rahman, Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS), noted that the core business of the UN is to protect the sovereignty of its member states and that loss of land due to sea level rise threatens Maldives’ sovereignty. He stressed that consumption patterns drive the problem of climate change.

Discussion: In the ensuing discussion, participants highlighted: the need to educate negotiators about vulnerable communities; the risks of overshooting temperature targets, especially regarding emissions targets currently under consideration; insurance for climate-related damages; the proposal to mainstream the protection of human rights in the design of the next commitment period; and legal frameworks for compensating for losses of cultural diversity.

For more information, contact: Sivan Kartha <>


POLICY MAKING IN A CHANGING CLIMATE: Anne Hammill, International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), introduced the panel, noting that it would focus on policy content and policy design.

Presentations: Lars Naess, IDS, underscored that adaptation is about understanding social complexities and differentiation, and highlighted the challenge of incorporating lessons from case studies into the policy process. Noting that policymaking is an incremental, rather than linear, process, he outlined the framework’s three analytical areas: narratives and evidence; actors and institutions; and politics and interests.

Maggie Opondo, University of Nairobi, presented on a project that aims to increase community resilience to drought in Kenya and influence climate policy from the bottom up. She described project activities and the policy context in Kenya. She also discussed the integration of climate change into national disaster management policies, focusing her comments on how the project team interacted with the policy process.

John Drexhage, IISD, stressed the importance of adaptive policy frameworks that can facilitate problem solving as constraints and contexts change. He identified seven tools that can help policy makers respond to both anticipated and unanticipated conditions: an integrated and forward-looking assessment; a multi-perspective deliberation; automatic policy adjustment; formal review and improvement; social networks; decentralization of decision making; and policy variation.

Sanjay Tomar, The Energy Resources Institute (TERI), described two case studies of adaptive policymaking in India. In describing an agricultural price policy, he highlighted the inclusion of the following adaptive policy features: integrated and forward-looking analysis; multi-stakeholder deliberation; formal review; and continuous learning. He also outlined a watershed development project in Maharashtra, and highlighted the following adaptive policy features: formal review and continuous learning; decentralization of decision making; and enabling self-organization and social networking.

Discussion: Participants considered: next steps to carry out good practices; ways to disseminate information; the role of bilateral agreements; the influence of global policymaking on bottom-up policymaking; the 2°C target in the decision-making process; and interaction with the media.

For more information, contact: Jo-Ellen Parry <>

COMMUNITY-BASED ADAPTATION: Martin Parry, Imperial College London, introduced the panel on community-based adaptation. He noted that mitigation, rather than adaptation, is driving the climate negotiations.

Presentations: Mozaharul Alam, BCAS, described how scientific knowledge can inform decision making for community-based adaptation (CBA). He classified CBA initiatives into two categories: livelihood diversification and capacity building for disaster preparedness. He concluded by introducing questions for the panel discussion, regarding: the importance of CBA; ways to promote CBA in international and national policymaking processes; the required capacity and enabling conditions at national and community levels; and the role of research organizations and non-governmental actors in CBA.

Richard Klein, SEI, discussed how national policymaking is promoting CBA, and urged lobbying of national policymakers for CBA funding, rather than solely focusing on the UNFCCC process. He stressed the importance of NAPAs, and noted that the Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change (2005-2010) articulates that communities should assist decision-makers in planning for adaptation.

Bubu Pateh Jallow, UNEP, described his experiences with the NAPA process, noting that very few NAPAs have been implemented, but that there is increased donor interest in helping least developed countries in NAPA implementation. He described a CBA pilot programme entitled, “Climate Change and Development – Adapting by Reducing Vulnerability,” currently being carried out in four sub-Saharan countries. 

Mazoe Gondwe, ActionAid, Malawi, underscored the importance of CBA, noting that, as a local farmer, she understands her farming needs and has identified effective land management strategies. She highlighted that unpredictable rain patterns have recently forced her to irrigate her crops, rather than rely exclusively on rainfall, and she called for technological assistance to reduce the time she must spend on irrigation and tillage. She further called for increased community awareness about climate change, not just in times of drought and flood but as an ongoing process.

Jian Liu, UNEP, described his organization’s adaptation activities. He stressed that international organizations support and complement, rather than assume, the role of governments. He underscored the need for long-term capacity building and highlighted that less than 10% of adaptation investments have been dedicated to implementation of adaptation projects.

Discussion: Participants highlighted the need to: move the adaptation debate from the environmental agenda to the development agenda; support local research; operationalize CBA; diversify adaptation funding; take urgent action on adaptation; and emphasize the role of public institutions and non-governmental organizations in CBA.

For more information, contact: Mozaharul Alam <>

ADAPTATION EFFECTIVESS: Ian Burton, independent scholar and consultant, introduced the panel, which was organized by IIED, noting that the panel would focus on adaptation effectiveness.

Presentations: Heather McGray, World Resources Institute (WRI), highlighted issues to consider when thinking about adaptation effectiveness, including that: adaptation is diverse and should be looked at from various perspectives; adaptation is an additional burden on development; assessing adaptation success differs across scales; there are many approaches to assessing adaptation such as qualitative, quantitative, narrative and mixed approaches; there are multiple purposes for assessing effectiveness, including assessment for learning and accountability; and there are many dimensions and players involved in assessing accountability. She concluded by highlighting a forthcoming WRI paper that develops a framework, called the Bellagio Framework, that identifies questions and indicators related to adaptation assessment.

Martin Fischler, Intercooperation, Switzerland, presented the findings of a study that reflected on past natural resource management experiences in India. He noted that the study used the sustainable-livelihood and the WRI-continuum approaches for examining 11 case studies of natural resource management. He concluded by stressing the importance of strong local institutions that continue to function beyond the project period.

Simon Anderson, IIED, presented on the collaborative work of nine African regional organizations that convened a workshop to consider monitoring and evaluation methodologies for adaptive capacity. He noted that the organizations agreed on the need to: share understanding of adaptive capacity; establish a community of practice on the topic; and test methodologies through the use of case studies. He also highlighted the importance of mutual training of participant organizations.

Angie Dazé, CARE International, discussed an adaptation framework for effective CBA, which is intended to inform the identification of milestones, indicators and monitoring tools to aid practitioners in considering adaptation activities. She described CARE International’s work in Bangladesh, which focused on analyzing vulnerability. She also called for building upon existing work, establishing appropriate accountability measures, and focusing on learning and process.

Discussion: Bonizella Biagini, Global Environment Facility, opened the discussion by highlighting points of agreement among the panelists. She underscored the need to focus on how funds are spent, a notion that highlights the importance of assessing effectiveness, and said that effectiveness is related to mutual accountability. She questioned why one panelist had said that the measurement of adaptation effectiveness is different from that of development.

Participants remarked on: community-level assessment; the lack of information about costs; the need for governmental coordination of research; challenges inherent in measuring effectiveness; the historical focus on mitigation; donor coordination; conflating effectiveness of adaptation with that of adaptive capacity; means to identify vulnerable countries; and temporal dimensions of adaptation.

For more information, contact: Simon Anderson <>

HIGH-LEVEL SESSION ON FUNDING ADAPTATION: Camilla Toulmin, IIED, introduced the panel, noting that it would focus on funding for adaptation.

Presentations: Richard Muyungi, Adaptation Fund Board Chair, highlighted two issues that are crucial to ensuring developing countries’ direct access to the Fund: overcoming the fact that neither the Fund nor its Board has international legal personality; and drafting guidelines and procedures for national entity accreditation to the Adaptation Fund in accordance with international financial risk management standards. He added that the monetization process will start in April 2009.

Mohammad Reazuddin, Bangladesh, said that it is premature to discuss the effectiveness of adaptation spending and stressed that adaptation strategies have limitations. He added that insurance schemes are only a part of the solution and adaptation must be supported by reduction and risk management strategies. Regarding the funding issue, he stressed the importance of predictable financing for adaptation, which could include a tax on polluters.

Yvan Biot, UK Department for International Development, discussed his experience as an Adaptation Fund Board member and as a development professional. He noted that the Fund is not based on voluntary contributions, and expressed support for this funding process, which, he said, facilitates direct access and empowers developing country states in decision making. He outlined three challenges: balancing bureaucracy with good governance; determining country needs; and ensuring that funding is directed towards the most vulnerable communities within countries.

Amjad Abdulla, Least Developed Countries (LDCs) Group Chair, Maldives, shared his experiences as an Adaptation Fund Board member. He described adaptation needs in the LDCs, called for equal footing for mitigation and adaptation, and discussed the need for developing country direct access to the Fund and NAPA implementation.

Bernarditas Muller, the Philippines, highlighted the urgent need for adaptation, and noted the UNFCCC’s commitment to adaptation. She argued that mitigation and adaptation are mutually supportive, and called for flexible funding, based on local experience rather than models. She concluded by noting that the Adaptation Fund is “developing countries’ money,” as it is generated from CDM projects that are hosted in developing countries.

Discussion: Participants considered: the notion that countries may portray themselves as vulnerable in order to access adaptation funds; the need to estimate additional funds required to climate-proof development plans; the Adaptation Fund Board’s current process for elaborating strategic guidelines and operational procedures for access to resources; and co-financing issues.

For more information, contact: Saleem Huq <>


Saleem Huq, IIED, noted the progress made over the two days, especially regarding discussions on community-based adaptation issues, and urged participants to return next year with presentations on how they have scaled up these projects. He closed the event at 5:45pm, inviting participants to a dinner reception at the Sheraton Hotel.


FAO HIGH-LEVEL CONFERENCE ON WATER FOR AGRICULTURE AND ENERGY IN AFRICA: THE CHALLENGES OF CLIMATE CHANGE: This UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) conference will be held from 15-17 December 2008, in Sirte, Libya. Its purpose is to address the availability of water resources in Africa under the circumstances of increased demand by the agricultural and energy sectors and in the context of changing climatic conditions. For more information, contact: Executive Secretariat; e-mail:; fax: +39-06-57056275; internet:

THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON COMMUNITY-BASED ADAPTATION: This conference will be held from 22-26 February 2009, in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It aims to share the latest developments in adaptation planning and practice, and disseminating knowledge among stakeholders and actors. For more information, contact: Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies; tel: +880-2-8851237; fax: +880-2-8851417; e-mail:; internet:

INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC CONGRESS ON CLIMATE CHANGE: GLOBAL RISKS, CHALLENGES AND DECISIONS: The congress will be convened from 10-12 March 2009, in Copenhagen, Denmark. Organized by the University of Copenhagen in cooperation with the partners in the International Alliance of Research Universities, the congress will include a session on adapting coastal zone and marine resourses to climate change. For more information, contact: Torben Mandrup Timmermann; tel: +45-3532-4106; e-mail:; internet:

AWG-LCA 5 AND AWG-KP 7: The fifth meeting of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) and the seventh session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) are scheduled to take place from 30 March-9 April 2009, in Bonn, Germany. For more information contact: UNFCCC Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail:; internet:

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ GLOBAL SUMMIT ON CLIMATE CHANGE: This conference will be held from 20-24 April 2009, in Anchorage, Alaska. The aim of the conference includes bringing indigenous people together to talk about common issues and raise the visibility and participation of indigenous people in local, national and international processes. For more information, contact: Inuit Circumpolar Council; e-mail:; internet:

30TH SESSIONS OF THE UNFCCC SUBSIDIARY BODIES: The 30th sessions of the Subsidiary Bodies of the UNFCCC – the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) – are scheduled to take place from 1-12 June 2009, in Bonn, Germany. For more information contact: UNFCCC Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail:; internet:

UNFCCC COP 15 AND KYOTO PROTOCOL COP/MOP 5: The fifteenth Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC and fifth meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol are scheduled to take place from 30 November-11 December 2009, in Copenhagen, Denmark. These meetings will coincide with the 31st meetings of the UNFCCC’s subsidiary bodies. Under the “roadmap” agreed at the UN Climate Change Conference in Bali in December 2007, COP 15 and COP/MOP 5 are expected to finalize an agreement on a framework for combating climate change post-2012 (when the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period ends). For more information contact: UNFCCC Secretariat; tel: +49-228-815-1000; fax: +49-228-815-1999; e-mail:; internet:

Further information