European Capacity Building Initiative
ecbi's Publications and Policy Analysis Unit (PPAU) generates information and advice for developing country negotiators that is relevant to the climate negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Developing countries often lack the economic and institutional capacity for policy analysis. If negotiators are unable to engage proactively by submitting proposals, responding to proposals from other States, and assessing the impact of global climate policy decisions on their individual States, progress in the negotiations can be hampered by the lack of alternatives and uncertainity. The differences in analytic capacity between developing countries and the industrialised world are often profound – developing countries lack support from organisations like the OECD, for instance, which has an immense apparatus producing thorough and focused reports, including direct advice on future policy responses to each of member country.
ecbi publications aim to be relevant to ongoing negotiations under the UNFCCC, timely, and trustworthy. PPAU works with negotiators from developing countries, sometimes through Editorial Committees, to identify UNFCCC issues where further analysis and policy advice is needed. Global experts are then teamed up with negotiators from devleoping countries to produce Policy Briefs and Discussion Notes. This partnership between experts and negotiators helps to ensure that the process of producing a Brief addresses the specific concerns of developing country negotiators; builds the capacity of developing country co-authors in policy analysis; and also builds ownership of the analysis.
For new negotiators, and for use in ecbi Regional and Pre-COP Training Workshops, PPAU produces Background Papers and a series of Pocket Guides. These generally provide a more basic analysis of issues for newcomers to the process, along with the background and history of the issue in the negotiations.
You can use the search function below or see all our publications in one page here
Discussions on the formulation and implementation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) have begun, but more clarity is needed on how finance for NAPs at the international level can support adaptation planning and implementation. This should be a priority for the 2014 climate conference in Peru, and for the Global Environment Facility, the Green Climate Fund (GCF), and other financial contributors. LDCs can explore low-cost and ‘no regret’ adaptation strategies to provide robust policy responses in the face of information uncertainty, and refine assessments of economic impacts of climate risks, in order to target adaptation investments better.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) should not be ditched in favour of new, untested mechanisms. New Market Mechanisms (NMMs) should use the governance structure of the CDM, but should go further in standardising baseline and monitoring methodologies. The Framework for Various Approaches (FVA) is unlikely to generate benefits that could not be harnessed by NMMs or the CDM. A sufficient demand for credits requires strengthening of Annex B country commitments and “graduation” of advanced developing countries to take up emission targets under the 2015 agreement. The stronger the commitments, the less the market mechanisms would have to contribute to global reductions. Targeted climate finance for underlying funding of CDM projects and Programmes of Activities(PoAs)is needed.
The negotiations under workstream 1 of the Ad hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP) , on a regime which is “applicable to all”, offer an opportunity for LDCs to ensure that the ambition of all Parties is raised. “Applicable to all” does not, however, mean uniformity of action. Of particular importance to the LDCs is the differentiation of approaches to commitments, and the provision of ways to deal with the special circumstances of Small Island Developing States and the LDCs.
Differentiation of commitments in the post-2020 period can take place either through the type of commitment, its ambition, and/or the process through which the commitment is determined. A good balance is needed between the initial level of ambition inscribed in the agreement, and a process to move to even more ambitious commitments later on. How country proposals will be reviewed for technical correctness, fairness and against the 1.5°C or 2°C limit is another critical point. Country positions on principles like equity, responsibility and capability vary broadly.
The Warsaw Framework for REDD+, a comprehensive package of seven technical and finance decisions that provide the fundamental architecture for REDD+ to be implemented, was adopted at the 2013 climate conference. Deforestation in LDCs represents nearly a third of tropical deforestation. REDD+ should therefore be a key component of LDC mitigation actions.
An explicit treatment of agriculture in the post -2020 climate agreement will put agriculture at the centre of global policy discussions, and address the objective of protecting food production enshrined in Article 2 of the UNFCCC. Adaptation is a more important priority among LDCs than mitigation in the agricultural sector. However, positive synergies exist between agricultural mitigation and the core needs of LDCs, including food security, adaptation and development. LDCs will need support to assess climate change impacts, identify response mechanisms, integrate the mechanisms into agricultural development plans, and implement the plans.
Presentation at Joint ecbi Committees and Funder Meeting
Durban Platform for Enhanced Action Options for Engagement
The Importance of Involving Stakeholders in the Green Climate Fund