1

The 2015 International Climate Change Agreement: Shaping international climate policy beyond 2020

Responses from the UN Brussels Team1

Question 1a: How can the 2015 Agreement be designed to ensure that countries can pursue sustainable economic development while encouraging them to do their equitable and fair share in reducing global GHG emissions so that global emissions are put on a pathway that allows us to meet the below 2°C objective?

The pursuit of sustainable development is a stated goal in the texts of both the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol and a common interest of all countries, and as such should be an important part of a new climate agreement. As recognized in paragraph 10 of the UNFCCC Cancun Agreements (2010), “addressing climate change requires a paradigm shift towards building a low-carbon society that offers substantial opportunities and ensures continued high growth and sustainable development, based on innovative technologies and more sustainable production and consumption and lifestyles, while ensuring a just transition of the workforce that creates decent work and quality jobs”2. It is important that countries understand that it is not necessary to choose between development and environmental protection but that reducing GHG emissions and more generally transitioning to a greener economy can have a positive impact on their economic development as long as they are accompanied by appropriate measures that allow for a fair and equitable transition. More concretely, the 2015 Climate Change Agreement offers an opportunity for a fundamental transformation of energy and industrial systems by 2030. A new, different framework that supports bottom-up action and concrete initiatives with clear quantitative goals and targets is indispensable. Furthermore, the 2015 Agreement should be designed in a manner that recognizes that effective long-term climate change management requires a shift from sector based perspectives to a holistic approach. This approach should acknowledge the interconnections between climate change responses and the range of development choices, and should therefore ensure that climate change mitigation and adaptation are integrated into national environment and sustainable development goals and national planning and budgeting processes. The process should involve multiple sectors, stakeholders, and ecosystems. In this sense at the country level, an all-government approach is required to promote greater civic responsibility across all sectors to take ownership for broad mitigation and adaptation actions, even in sectors and areas with low emissions. The 2015 agreement should help to engage a broad range of Ministries and parts of governments. With the commitment and support from Ministries of Planning and Finance, as well as a Line Ministries across the spectrum of relevant sectors - risks and opportunities presented by climate change can be better integrated into national development policies, plans and budgets. The political importance and visibility of the 2015 agreement provides an opportunity to ensure climate change is treated as an urgent and cross-cutting development issue. The 2015 Agreement should also support countries (at both national and sub national governments) to mobilize and combine conventional and innovative sources of financing (public and private) and develop comprehensive policy options to address the challenges of scaling up the transition to low-emission, green and climate-resilient development. Only through a transformational change can we ensure both sustainable growth and real emission reductions that allow us to meet the below 2 degree objective.

1 The UN agencies contributing to this note include: ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNFPA, UN-Habitat, UNIDO, UN-ISDR, UNWOMEN, WFP, and

WHO. 2 http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf

2

Low-emission and climate resilient development with economy-wide policies and measures, which are cost effective and supported with finance, technology and capacity building for developing countries need to be in the core of the agreement. Therefore the design of a new climate agreement must provide mechanisms and incentives that will enable countries to shift towards low-carbon and climate resilient development pathways. One way a new agreement can facilitate this, is for example by providing incentives and mechanisms for deploying renewable energies. This could be done through developing new joint approaches and market/non-market mechanisms to enhance sustainable development that builds on existing Kyoto Protocol market mechanisms (e.g. the Clean Development Mechanism). Such mechanisms could in principle offer a suite of potential contributions to sustainable development – for example rural energy provision, biomass energy, energy efficiency, transport, agriculture. Additional ways to enable mitigation ambition include (i) providing early investment in low-carbon technologies – this can be done through the existing Green Climate Fund once it is operationalized; (ii) setting an international minimum carbon price to incentivize investment in low-carbon technologies. Q1b: How can we avoid a repeat of the current situation where there is a gap between voluntary pledges and the reductions that are required to keep global temperature increase below 2° C?

The gap between pledges and reductions could be addressed by agreeing to relevant targets for countries. In order to allow sufficient time for consultations and adjustments, countries should provide their intentions in a timely manner (2014). This process should be based on the main principle of the Convention of common but differentiated responsibilities as well as on the respective capacities and equity considerations. At the same time, many countries are currently implementing a range of mitigation measures nationally, but these are not publicised or MRV-ed. Reporting domestically implemented mitigation actions is needed and the provision of assistance to national MRV systems would help in this respect. Question 2: How can the 2015 agreement best ensure the contribution of all major economies and sectors and minimise the potential risk of carbon leakage between competitive economies?

A new climate agreement must be designed in a way that enables maximum participation of Parties. Existing design options include “top-down” (which is a feature of the Kyoto protocol) and “bottom-up” as in the Copenhagen pledges. However, neither “top-down” nor “bottom-up” is likely to achieve broad participation as well as maximum ambition. A new 2015 climate agreement could be designed that combines both approaches in a so-called “hybrid” approach. A hybrid approach would combine “top-down” target setting and “bottom-up” approaches (where countries set their own mitigation targets according to their national circumstances, while the international community would assess and verify each country’s progress towards those targets). Scenarios for a hybrid option include:

Mitigation commitments determined top-down and actions pledged bottom-up

Commitments are nationally determined, but rules are determined internationally and is top-down for all Parties

The exact details of a hybrid model should meet the ‘test’ of achieving ambitious reduction commitments as well as ensuring participation by all major economies. One way to ensure the contribution of all major economies and sectors is to consider a minimum global carbon price as part of a new climate agreement. A global minimum carbon price is an effective instrument to reduce GHG emissions. It would have two broad effects – a demand effect, reducing energy demand due to higher prices, and a

3

substitution effect, with switching from more to less carbon intensive fuels. Carbon taxes have been shown to be successful in reducing emissions in several countries without measurably impacting economic growth. National low-carbon development strategies, bodies and platforms for example, could be set up to discuss effective mitigation strategies across all sectors while at the same time looking at competitiveness issues. The 2013 IEA report ‘Redrawing the Energy-Climate map’ for example highlights the economic benefits of climate action for all major emitters including China and US, specifying that 50% of emissions could be reduced by efficiency alone. Furthermore, the 2015 Agreement must consider the adoption of a global accounting system that would be able to capture / measure the implications of countries’ actions across sectors. Establishing such credible measures require technical expertise and technology. Capacity-building and access to such technology must be made available to all countries. While establishing measures is one thing, ensuring compliance is another. On the latter, peer pressure, transparency and reliable national government reports are key. The post-2015 Agreement could also consider mechanism that incentivizes positive actions, e.g., compliance stamps through the CDMs. Question 3: How can the 2015 Agreement most effectively encourage the mainstreaming of climate change in all relevant policy areas? How can it encourage complementary processes and initiatives, including those carried out by non-state actors?

Mainstreaming climate change requires addressing the issue through a range of possible sector impacts. In addition, the process should incorporate broad stakeholder engagement - bottom-up and top-down to ensure proper internalization of the issues. The new agreement could outline a process and benchmarks to enable mainstreaming of climate change into existing policy structures (macro and micro-economic) and organizations. For instance, social dialogue between governments, workers and employers could be a powerful tool to get the buy-in from these stakeholders and reach an agreement that mainstreams climate action into broader social and economic policy. The agreement could include a provision encouraging its parties to consult with important national and local stakeholders (which would also include employers and workers organisation for policy areas related to industry and employment) to ensure that climate change adaptation and mitigation measures are mainstreamed in the different policy areas Complementary initiatives and innovative business models like the Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) or the Green Industry Platform (GIP) or existing mechanisms or activities like National Cleaner Production Centres (NCPCs) in many countries as well as phase-out plans for Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS) should be supported to drive the transformation of industry and energy systems. At the same time, the Agreement should also recognize the importance of food security and agriculture in National Adaptation Plans. All previous NAPAs identified food security and agriculture as national adaptation priorities. Another example would be to mainstream disaster resilience into climate policy actions based on the outcomes of international high level conferences/consultations on the subject such as the Global Platforms for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and the Regional DRR platforms meetings.

Question 4: What criteria and principles should guide the determination of an equitable distribution of mitigation commitments of parties to a 2015 agreement along a spectrum of commitments that reflect national circumstances, are widely perceived as equitable and fair and that are collectively sufficient avoiding any shortfall in ambitions?

Developing countries that are major emitters should be encouraged to engage in the mitigation effort under the new 2015 Climate Agreement while the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities should

4

continue to apply. Studies show that strong mitigation would increase social and employment benefits.3 Based on national social, employment and economic studies, required to be submitted to the UNFCCC, mitigation requirements will be distributed. Accordingly, mitigation action could be designed and financed in an innovative way. Those projects where the highest climate, social and economic benefits can be realized, with just transition polices could be financed. For example, concrete action in the energy and industrial sectors can be advanced by adopting Resource-Efficiency as an objective in the policy framework for the transition to low-carbon development and for setting up sector priorities that can have a positive impact across other sectors. Another example is the Green Economy health briefings (by the UN) where health impacts of climate change mitigation strategies considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their Fourth Assessment Report (Climate Change, 2007) are examined. Large, immediate health benefits from some climate change strategies are to be expected. Other strategies, however, may involve health risks or tradeoffs. These issues should be considered in the next round of IPCC mitigation reviews (Fifth Assessment Report [AR5])4. Clear and ambitious target setting and monitoring of trajectories will be a key element of all mitigation examples. Also a flexible, bottom-up approach to mitigation, - such as the one created by the Copenhagen Accord is important giving developed and developing countries the opportunity to decide on their level of mitigation

ambition should be supported. Question 5: What should be the role of the 2015 Agreement in addressing the adaptation challenge and how should this build on on-going work under the Convention? How can the 2015 Agreement further incentivise the mainstreaming of adaptation into all relevant policy areas?

The 2015 climate agreement must build on existing adaptation mechanisms such as the Cancun Adaptation Framework, Adaptation Committee, as well as adaption finance under the Green Climate Fund and Adaptation Fund. In addition a new agreement should aim at defining global adaptation targets and goals in line with science. A 2015 agreement could also explore and focus on potential synergies between adaptation and mitigation – for example agriculture and the water sector provides relatively high potential for both mitigation and adaptation. And finally it must build upon and expand work already commenced - in particular:

a. The NAP process that LDCs are embarking on will be an important element of the post 2015 agenda. These efforts ensure that climate change risks and opportunities are fully integrated into medium and long term development strategies, and should continue to be supported.

b. As an input to the NAP process, it is also important to better understand the costs of both climate change impacts and adaptation measures for effective implementation. This helps to facilitate the integration of climate change into national strategies and budgets. There are on-going efforts to train multi-disciplinary groups of government officials in Asian countries on the economics of climate change adaptation. Similarly, expenditure and institutional reviews are also being undertaken in the Asian region and beyond to better understand the budget expenditures on climate change within the government.

c. Social protection programmes must be designed to take climate into account by helping highly vulnerable people to move away from high risk areas and livelihoods. This also means making sure that the job training started today must be towards areas that are going to be relevant under conditions of

3 http://www.ilo.org/global/publications/ilo-bookstore/order-online/books/WCMS_181836/lang--en/index.htm

4 See policy briefs on: Housing (English/Spanish), Urban Transport (English/Spanish), Household Energy in Developing

Countries (English/Spanish), Health-Care Facilities (English/Spanish) and Occupational Health (English). http://www.who.int/hia/green_economy/en/

5

a changed climate. Similarly, food assistance tools (including safety nets, public work schemes, as well as local food procurement that link farmers to markets) can enable marginalized and food insecure people living in highly degraded and risk prone environments to engage in Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA).

d. The policy and regulatory foundation for effective adaptation action is being built in many countries and must be further strengthened and scaled up. The 2015 agreement must focus on supporting countries to get the policy, planning/budgeting, regulatory, and market incentives right to support a rapid entry into a changed and changing climate. The flexibility of countries to adapt, determined in large part by the nature of the policy and institutional setting in their countries, will be key in order to minimize damages and reap the benefits of opportunities that will also become increasingly available.

It is particularly important that capacity is built for evidence based learning to track the effectiveness of past plans and budgets, identify and address the gaps and needs for climate resilient development and inform climate policy decisions at sub-national and national levels. Major investments in adaptation could offer significant employment and income opportunities in areas such as extending coastal defences, reinforcing buildings and infrastructure, water management and harvesting. Adaptation will require the transfer of numerous new technologies on a large scale and will also involve the relocation of exposed settlements and industry and hence will strongly impact the world of work. It is therefore essential that social partners are included in the elaboration of national adaptation and mitigation plans to ensure all affected stakeholders own and are responsible for these efforts and concerns addressed early. Inclusion of stakeholder views accommodates a wide range of population dynamics and related demographic issues, which can help reduce exposure and strengthen adaptive capacity to deal with climate change impacts and helps avoid static perceptions of vulnerability. Changes that affect the size, distribution and composition of human populations also affect both the nature of vulnerability, as well as adjustments in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli. Population issues are in themselves closely linked to economic and social development. The interactions between fertility, migration, spatial distribution, age structure, household size and composition, race and ethnicity and gender dynamics shape economic growth, as well as access to social safety nets and services which are integral to secure livelihoods. Some aspects of population dynamics, such as migration, urbanization and age structure are directly linked to adaptation. Hence, analysis of population characteristics and dynamics can be a powerful tool for adaptation programming and for building adaptive capacity.5 Given the concentrations of vulnerable populations in urban areas and the role that local governments must play in adaptation planning, the Guidelines for National Adaptation Plans, currently under development, should include a specific reference to and provision for actively involving local authorities in such planning processes. It is therefore crucial that the Agreement assure full recognition of DRR (disaster risk reduction) as a means to adapt to climate change with reference to the successor of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA). The HFA 2 will be the post-2015 global DRR framework for guiding coordinated actions in Climate Change Adaptation and DRR and the consultations on HFA 2 are currently ongoing. It is important that co-ordination among different EC DGs continues on the role of DRR in Climate Change Adaptation, contributing to effective policy guidance during the negotiation of the agreement, and supporting the reference to the HFA2 in the articles which will be related to climate adaptation and disaster risk management. Incentive can be provided by examples of practical and applicable policy options on how to

5 Martine, George and Daniel Schensul, eds. 2013, The Demography of Adaptation to Climate Change, New York, London,

Mexico City: UNFPA, IIED, El Colegio de Mexico. http://www.unfpa.org/public/home/publications/pid/13218

6

mainstream Adaptation in other cross-sector development policies. The EU also has a key role in providing those examples such as the work which have been carried out by the relevant DGs for the execution of the White Paper on Climate Change Adaptation and, from now on, the work that will be undertaken for implementing the EU Climate Change Adaptation Strategy launched in April 2013. So far the EU/EC made remarkable contributions in support of the implementation of the HFA and the National/Regional Platform for DRR (within Europe and in third countries which are recipients of EU assistance) and it is important that the support is scaled up to assure that DRR is considered a crucial element for adaptation to climate in the years to come. In vision of the Agreement, a practical proposal can be for leading EC DGs such as ECHO, DG Climate Action, DG Environment, etc. to work with relevant UN bodies and provide support to the relevant consultations so that fact-sheets or studies are produced on what has worked in mainstreaming climate risk management into mechanisms such as the National Platforms for DRR in the EU. Existing approaches to adaptation have had serious limitations, among which, have been their reactive nature and the lack of solid data on which to base decision-making, both of which could benefit from an incorporation of population dynamics. The lack of solid information related to risk and vulnerability often provides a convenient justification for the lack of effective, proactive approaches. The correct use of demographic data could provide a wealth of analyses and insights that can orient more effective approaches, particularly when applied to maps and tied to the geography of current and expected climate-related hazards. Census data are vital to this effort, providing comprehensive and spatially referenced information on populations exposed to and experiencing the impacts of climate change. During the 2010 round of censuses, over 90 per cent of the world’s population was enumerated, (through mapping illustrations), and information is available on critical aspects of adaptation including education, service access, housing materials and location in exposed areas. Question 6: What should be the future role of the Convention and specifically the 2015 Agreement in the decade up to 2030 with respect to finance, market-based mechanisms and technology? How can existing experience be built upon and frameworks further improved?

Finance is a crucial element of a 2015 climate agreement. The implementation of programmes accessing the Green Climate Fund (GCF) - according to decisions relating to the operationalization of the technology centre incorporating gender balance and the consideration of gender issues, needs to start. Other mechanisms could include establishing a globally harmonized carbon market trajectory from 2020 onwards. These market benchmarks would be implemented within national jurisdictions, and a percentage of nationally collected revenues could be used to fund a global response to climate change in poor, least developed countries. The international community has increased triangular North-South-South public finance transfers and developed new and evolving financial mechanisms for climate change activities. However, transformations in production and consumption processes require a broader response. Actions to promote low-emission and climate-resilient development must be largely public policy-based and private-sector financed where international public finance is used alongside much larger capital flows. Four key issues must be addressed to promote this transformation: a. International public finance should not be used to finance isolated interventions, but rather to support

countries to ‘crowd in’ private sector and local finance and so drive transformational change at the scale required.

b. Mobilise external finance in ways that are aligned with national systems and priorities is extremely complex, given the multiplicity of international public funds, carbon markets and private equity funds already providing “green” finance and those that are rapidly emerging. International public finance should

7

be used to support systems that are able to navigate and access the multitude of sources. Most important is climate change ‘readiness’ in order to catalyse climate finance.

c. Public finance should be used to promote integration and ensure that developing countries are able to adequately embed climate finance within and alongside national development planning

d. Energy efficiency, offers considerable scope for simultaneously reducing countries’ GHG emissions and reducing energy expenditures while improving energy security. Fossil fuel subsidy reform (with appropriate safeguards) is among the most effective measures to ‘level the playing field’ for renewable forms of energy to compete in the marketplace

Furthermore, climate risk finance should continue to be a crucial part of disaster risk management. The development of strategic public-private partnerships which create shared value is considered an important strategy in the Chair Summary of relevant high-level meetings such as the Global Platforms for DRR and multi-sector studies such as the Global Assessment Reports on DRR. One of the most important examples is the role of disaster insurance as a driver to transfer risk from homeowners, farmers and small-medium enterprises into global financial markets. This approach would provide an overall positive effect in countries’ fiscal positions in the aftermath of intensive climate related disasters. Market-based mechanisms: A prerequisite to effective functioning of market-based carbon mechanisms is investor confidence, as is a predictable and reasonable price on carbon. Investors and project developers need sufficiently attractive carbon prices, and an expectation that such prices will be sustained. This is currently lacking with regard to the CDM. Market-based carbon mechanisms should transition towards sector-wide and economy-wide instruments. Lessons from existing transformational instruments, notably the GEF, can usefully be absorbed in this regard. Market-based mechanisms should seek net climate benefits, moving beyond offsetting. Energy subsidy reform is also an important measure which can further encourage low-emission approaches to sustainable growth while also addressing the economic consequences caused by such subsidies. However, successful reforms must include compensatory programmes and carefully designed mitigation measures that protect the poorest and assist the economy in its long-term adaptation to low-carbon pathways. Finally, linking of instruments – notably emissions trading schemes – can play a useful role in creating market liquidity, reducing abatement costs and providing coordination. Intermediate mechanisms (CDM, PoAs, NMMs, etc.) are also useful, but in the long run the expansion of regional Emission Trading Schemes (ETS) towards directly linked ETS’ and therefore a truly global carbon market is desirable. Globally linked carbon markets with a legitimate price on carbon can incentivize cost effective actions on mitigation and technology innovation and achieve emission reductions at scale while facilitating the adoption of more ambitious mitigation targets. Technology transfer: The Climate Technology Centre and Network will continue to be an important pillar of a 2015 agreement. However, a new treaty will have to use new market and non-market mechanisms to push for climate technology innovation and deployment, in ways that the existing Kyoto Protocol has not been able to achieve. The Agreement should include issues such as; South-South transfers, treating technology transfer as a holistic issue - mainstreaming it into the broader mitigation discussion that focuses on technology transfer as a means, not an end and creating enabling conditions for the diffusion and broad application of new technology However, the effective transfer of Best Available Technology/Techniques (BAT) and Best Environmental Practices (BEP) should be encouraged whilst also ensuring adherence to environmental and social standards and the lowest possible carbon footprint in global supply chains.

8

Question 7: How could the 2015 Agreement further improve transparency and accountability of countries internationally? To what extent will an accounting system have to be standardised globally? How should countries be held accountable when they fail to meet their commitments?

The 2015 agreement should adopt common and universal rules, especially clear MRV rules to ensure improved transparency and accountability. A central knowledge hub and effective knowledge networks on the key thematic areas to facilitate learning, exchange of information and sharing of good practices and lessons learned will provide countries with the right tools to implement systems to capture the present emissions scenarios. An MRV regime must be transparent to ensure information accuracy and comparisons across action types, regions, and levels of development while remaining robust and dynamic to capture future mitigation actions. Ideally, countries could be motivated to meet their commitments if there is agreement to use the EU ETS principle, where countries pay certain penalties and where amounts available are reduced in the next period for the legally binding commitments. For voluntary commitments, review and facilitation measures are advised to help countries come back on track. It is also important to embrace methodologies by which subnational governments measure, report and verify emissions in a manner fully consistent with national-level accounting (e.g., Global Protocol for Community-Scale Greenhouse Gas Emissions). Question 8: How could the UN climate negotiating process be improved to better support reaching an inclusive, ambitious, effective and fair 2015 Agreement and ensuring its implementation?

Climate Change as well as climate policy has a ‘human face’ which would improve significantly if development and climate are addressed in an integrated way. Identifying social and economic benefits first would alleviate the fears and catalyse negotiations. The negotiating process should take into consideration not only targeted emission cuts, but also encourage international, regional and national strategies to facilitate adaptation, mitigation and transition. Positive effects of low-carbon economies on developing countries’ socio-economic development could be demonstrated through technical assistance and inclusive and targeted dialogue processes in order to persuade them to join mitigation action. Technical assistance could include helping set national targets for renewable energy and resource efficiency as one approach to deliver the mitigation goals. And an example of targeted dialogue efforts could include an exchange between trade unions, employers and governments to voice and hear concerns and to reach shared strategies on green livelihood creation. Ultimately, there should be multi-stakeholder participation in decision making to ensure adequate and genuine representation of the various interests. Expert views from academics, civil society, scientists and practitioners should be sought to inform the negotiators and the Secretariat. The UNFCCC Secretariat has advanced the discussions (and the draft Agreement) to consider UN principles, in particular, human rights, gender equality, inclusiveness and broad participation.

Question 9: How can the EU best invest in and support processes and initiatives outside the Convention to pave the way for an ambitious and effective 2015 agreement?

Initiatives outside the Convention allow governments to adopt and apply climate policies for the pre-2020 period (given that a new climate agreement will only enter into force in 2020) and strengthen national systems to use climate finance to promote sustainable production and consumption patterns at the national level, such as flexible technical assistance, targeted capacity development efforts and knowledge outlets that are comprehensive and which offer alternative investments choices, informational resources, best practices/lessons learned, and financial and analytical tools to address high demand capacity needs.

9

The GCF, as mentioned complements national initiatives, this ensures governments at national and local levels are “ready” to use climate finance effectively. Readiness activities aim to ensure recipient countries are better placed to absorb finance into development priorities and processes e.g. blending public and private financing to accelerate appropriate investments in low-emission technologies and innovative mitigation and adaptation measures. Many UN agencies are already working in many LDCs/SIDS and MICs on readiness for adaptation and mitigation in the areas of policy, investment, capacity development and action at the grassroots level. Funding sources are diverse, however, there is much more which can and needs to be done. For example, the EU 2020 strategy of ‘investing into human capital’ should be extended and applied in the climate context as well. Investing into ‘Greening human capital’ is likely to yield not only economic and social benefits but will also lead to major mitigation of greenhouse gases. In addition, besides the support the EU provides to innovative business models such as SE4ALL and Green Industry Platform (GIP) that can mobilize governments, the private sector and civil society towards an ambitious and effective 2015 agreement, it should actively seek dialogue, provide technical assistance and share good practices with countries that are not yet embracing the opportunities a low-carbon economy can provide them. Finally, specific climate change cooperation clauses have been inserted in recent bilateral/inter-regional agreements between the EU and its partner countries, to cooperate on trade-related aspects of the future international climate change regime and it has built partnerships related to climate and agriculture, with the UN, however the EU should also extend and replicate this practice through other sectors such as health, energy and water. We also laud the EU (through DG Internal Market) efforts to promote the use of disaster insurance in the EU and in supporting regional initiatives such as the South Eastern Europe and Caucasus Catastrophe Risk Insurance Facility (SEEC CRIF). Therefore, the role of the EU in establishing partnerships with relevant actors to provide evidence of effective private-public cooperation to adopt climate adaptation strategies is important in influencing climate adaption investment by national policy decision makers.

10

ANNEX 1: REFERENCES & UN PRACTICE on CLIMATE ADAPTATION

1. UNDP provides assistance to more than 100 countries to lay the frameworks for such change through the development of green low emission and climate resilient development strategies (Green LECRDS) that build upon existing development strategies and planning processes. Currently UNDP provides support for capacity development to prepare Low Emission Development Strategies6, National Adaptation Plans7, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions8, National Communications9, National Biodiversity Strategy and Actions Plans10, UN-REDD Programme11, sub-national Green LECRDS12, integrated and cross-cutting climate and development knowledge platforms13, and Climate Public Expenditure and Institutional Reviews as applied through the Poverty-Environment Initiative14, among many other areas.

A list of UNDP publications, can be found here:

http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/environmentandenergy/focus_areas/climate_strategies/green_l

ecrds_guidancemanualsandtoolkits/

2. WHO would welcome a “framework protocol” approach, following the example of the WHO tobacco convention. The treaty is notable for its unprecedented inclusion of nongovernmental organizations throughout the negotiation and drafting processes. In addition, a stronger emphasis on state benefits would be encouraging as well as a balanced approach to mitigation and adaptation. The possible following content might be considered: a. Set up the key elements/criteria of a climate bill (e.g. as in the UK) and discuss the essential elements

for such a bill in cooperation of all sectors. b. Build on unifying common elements, such as health. For example Health links all three Rio conventions. c. Include sector specific standards and indicators, whilst linking to the SDGs and post-2015 MDGs. d. Create new opportunities for regional voluntary and multilateral initiatives (Convention on Long-range

Transboundary Air Pollution, Water Convention, the transport, environment and health initiative, etc.). e. Develop a framework of rules for public-private partnerships and interaction. f. An award system for the engagement of communities, cities and regions. g. Refrain from separate developing and developed countries annexes and instead push for joint and

common responsibility.

The EU proposal calls for mainstreaming climate change and to make specific integration in the follow-up to Rio+20, the MDG review and addressing the concerns of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Significant work has been carried out in the Region of the Americas regarding these three, and much information can be found in http://new.paho.org/tierra/ including all pre and post Rio+20 Seminars and reports prepared by PAHO in consultation with countries A good example is demonstrated by the “informal” European Environment and Health Process: in the late 1980s, European countries initiated the first ever process to eliminate the most significant environmental threats to human health. The Parma Declaration is the first time-bound outcome of the Environment and Health Process. The

6 With funding from the EC, Germany, Australia

7 Least Developed Country Fund

8 With funding from EC, Germany, Australia, Global Environment Facility

9 With GEF funding

10 With GEF funding

11 Multiple donors

12 Multiple donors

13 With GEF funding

14 Multiple donors

11

governments of the 53 Member States of the WHO European Region set clear-cut targets to reduce the adverse health impact of environmental threats in the next decade. Therefore “A decent Life for all by 2030”, the proposed EU development agenda should explicitly include health. In addition, the Ministries of Health of 193 WHO Member States have started to take action, through a World Health Assembly resolution - see the World Health Assembly resolution below (WHO, 2008) http://www.who.int/globalchange/climate/EB_CChealth_resolution/en/index.html.

The EU understands the important work done outside the Convention through the Hyogo Framework on DRR; however we also recommend that the EU incorporates health adaptation, as is outlined in the following:

European Region: Protecting health in an environment challenged by climate change (WHO EURO, 2010). http://www.euro.who.int/en/what-we-do/health-topics/environment-and-health/Climate-change/publications/2010/protecting-health-in-an-environment-challenged-by-climate-change-european-regional-framework-for-action.

Region of the Americas: PAHO climate change and health strategy (WHO AMRO, 2011). http://www.paho.org/hq/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=20292&Itemid

South-East Asia Region: Regional strategy for protecting health from climate change (WHO SEARO, 2010). http://www.searo.who.int/entity/climate_change/documents/sea_ehc_575/en/index.html

African Region: Adaptation to climate change in Africa. Health sector plan (WHO AFRO, 2012). http://www.afro.who.int/en/clusters-a-programmes/hpr/protection-of-the-human-environment/phe-publications.html.

3. Examples of complementary Initiatives from UNIDO

Sustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) http://www.sustainableenergyforall.org/

Green Industry Platform (GIP) http://www.greenindustryplatform.org/

Climate Center and Network (CTCN) http://unfccc.int/ttclear/templates/render_cms_page?TEM_tcn

Resource Efficient and Cleaner Production (RECP) http://www.unido.org/what-we-do/environment/resource-efficient-and-low-carbon-industrial-production/cp/resource-efficient-and-cleaner-production.html

Montreal Protocol and Multilateral Fund http://ozone.unep.org/new_site/en/index.php http://www.multilateralfund.org/default.aspx

4. ILO’s work focuses on addressing the social and labour dimension of climate change and the organisations has produced a number of publications and contributed to the UNFCCC discussions. In June 2013 this issue has been on the agenda of the International Labour Conference and global tripartite conclusions have been adopted:

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---relconf/documents/meetingdocument/wcms_216378.pdf

12

ILO offers a resource guide on green jobs which also includes publications and good practices on climate change: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/support/lib/resource/subject/greenjobs.htm http://www.ilo.org/empent/units/green-jobs-programme/about-the-programme/WCMS_176462/lang--en/index.htm

5. UN-ISDR provides tools on climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction, including countries’ climate and disaster risk profiles and Hyogo Framework national progress reports can be found at http://www.preventionweb.net/english/

6. UN-Habitat:

Urban-LEDS is http://urbanleds.iclei.org/

UN-Habitat tools and publications in the framework of the 'cities and climate change initiative' see

http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/Publications.aspx?page=ByTheme&categoryID=630 A knowledge Centre was launched jointly by UN-HABITAT, UNEP and the WORLD BANK http://www.citiesandclimatechange.org