Chapter One

1.1 Introduction:

Climate change is the most serious issue facing the human race. In the last couple of years public concern about climate change has intensified. Meanwhile, the economy is shifting and a number of companies are emerging which offer solutions to the problems posed by climate change. These solutions represent attractive investment opportunities and over the last few years have performed better than the global stock market as a whole, Bangladesh is situated in vulnerable situation our government policy is not aware the fund.

Bangladesh along with other vulnerable countries is demanding equal status for adaptation similar to that of mitigation. Bangladesh emphasized that adaptation is crucial for the survival of LDCS as the impacts of climate change is increasingly observed in many parts of the global climate change fund is the most important issue in our country.

The impacts of climate change have started and the world’s poorest people are likely to be hit first and hardest. Recent researches have estimated the costs of mitigation and adaptation at around US$ 200 to US$ 210 billion and US$ 28 to US$ 67 billion, respectively, by 2030.

It is widely recognized that there is a huge funding gap between what is needed and what is available to address climate change. This requires a diverse array of funding schemes, ranging from public and private sources, as well as new and innovative mechanisms. In addition, for a successful agreement to be reached at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009, sufficient financial resources must be provided to enable its implementation.

1.2 Subject matter of the study:

The title of the research is the Subject matter of the study. As the title of the research is climate change fund: How Bangladesh can be benefited on the preferential basis. It is the new strategic throughout the world on the issue of climate change fund. This study is related to the environment and to adaptation the financing position.

1.3 Aims and objective of the study:

The research is not a manual on how to solve the negotiation of climate change fund. Rather it aims to be a catalyst that will inspire creative action to claim the climate change fund. The research book seeks to raise awareness of the resources and range of tools that are available to defend and promote the fund. The aim and objective of the study are-

  • To find out whether the fund is justifiable or not:
  • To make awareness the climate change fund,
  • To highlight a comparison between Bangladesh and developed countries
  • To draw a picture of Global Scenario of Fund

1.4 Importance of the study:

Climate change Fund is the most important issue. This study acts like an invisible ray to claim the demand of fund. This research discuss about adaptation and negotiation of climate change fund and find out the key point of solution.

1.5 Methodology of Importance of the study:

Methodology is very important for any research. Without adopting proper methods, it is difficult to conduct the research fruitfully. The optimum outcome of the research depends largely on the adopting of the proper methods related to thee topics to preparing this thesis work I have followed both the historical and analytical methods. I have also followed the statistical method and also took help from many different Website, journals, Environment office

Chapter Two


2.1      Climate Change: Global Scenario

The Earth is warming and its climate is changing. Indeed, measurements show that the Earth has warmed by 0.74ºC over the last 100 years. Warmer surface temperatures heat the oceans, melt ice sheets, and alter weather patterns across the globe.

As a result sea levels have risen globally by 10–20 millimeters during the 20th century and snow cover has receded by about 10 percent since the 1960s, with a 5-kilometer retreat in the alpine and continental glaciers. In the Arctic, where the expanding ocean absorbs more heat, the ice cover has retreated faster than the global average. If this melting continues, science predicts that summers in the Arctic will be ice free within 100 years.

There are cascading effects of climate change, with some areas becoming drier due to more heat and evaporation, such as the Sahel, the Mediterranean basin, Southern Africa, and parts of Southern Asia. Other areas are experiencing increased and more variable precipitation, particularly the east of North and South America, Northern Europe, and Northern and Central Asia. Over the past 50 years, weather patterns have also become more variable. Storm duration and peak winds of tropical cyclones have increased, together with ocean warming. These impacts do not register as apocalyptic events. However, increased exposure to droughts, floods, and environmental stress are beginning to take their toll on communities in climate-vulnerable parts of the world. In South Asia, the impacts of higher temperatures, more variable precipitation, more extreme weather events, and sea level rise will likely continue to intensify. These changes are already having impacts on the lives and livelihoods of millions of poor people who remain exposed to climate risks.

The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear. The causes of global warming, the extent of climate change, humanity’s contribution to it, and the consequences for development have all been vigorously disputed. The broad science has now settled and with rare unanimity a broad scientific consensus holds that climate change is a consequence of human activities. Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (NO2) are the main greenhouse gases that are produced through human activities – primarily the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. These GHGs trap heat inside the atmosphere and warm the surface of the Earth.

2.2 Understanding Greenhouse Effect

The composition of the atmosphere is important in determining the Earth’s climate because certain naturally occurring gases, such as CO2 and water vapor, allow the passage of incoming short-wave radiation while trapping much of the long-wave radiation reflected from the Earth’s surface, in much the same way as a greenhouse operates (see figure below). Life on Earth is made possible because of this effect, which maintains the global mean surface air temperature at around 15°C (59°F). As the volume of these “greenhouse gases” increases, so too does the Earth’s temperature. Temperature changes in turn alter climate systems. A complex feedback loop may emerge whereby a change in one factor, such as temperature, changes another factor, such as the volume of water vapor, which either reinforces or offsets the initial temperature change. A substantial part of the uncertainty in projecting future climate change is due to an incomplete understanding of these feedback processes. 

2.3 Primary impacts of climate change: Bangladesh Context

Bangladesh is widely recognized to be one of the most vulnerable countries in the world. The country is already experiencing the adverse impacts- hotter summers, irregular  monsoon, untimely rainfall, heavy rainfall over short period causing water logging and landslides, little rainfall in the dry season, increased river flow and inundation during monsoon, increased frequency, intensity and recurrence of floods, crop damage due to flash floods and moonsonal rain, crop failure due to drought, prolonaged cold spell, salinity intrusion along the coast leading to scarcity of potable water and redundancy of prevailing crop practices, coastal erosion, river bank erosion, deaths due to extreme heat and extreme cold etc. (CCC, 2008).

Although the rich countries and economic policy instruments are largely responsible for the climate crisis but its impacts are affecting especially the poor countries very unevenly and disproportionately. The Fourth Assessment Report of IPCC (IPCC 2007) report has described climate change impacts for different region of the globe with very high and high confidence. The report identifies Bangladesh as one of the worst victims of climate change, although one of the lowest per-capita emitters historically and currently. In Bangladesh, the impacts of higher temperatures, more variable precipitation, more extreme weather events, and sea level rise will likely continue to intensify.

–              In Bangladesh, average temperature has registered an increasing trend of about 1°C in May and 0.5°C in November during the 14 year period from 1985 to 1998. (Mirza and Dixit, 1997; Khan,2000; Mirza 2002)

–              The annual mean rainfall exhibits increasing trends in Bangladesh. Decennial rain anomalies are above long term averages since 1960s. (Mirza and Dixit, 1997; Khan,2000; Mirza 2002)

–              Serious and recurring floods have taken place during 2002, 2003, and 2004. Cyclones originating from the Bay of Bengal have been noted to decrease since 1970 but the intensity has increased. ( Cruz, 2007)

–              Frequency of monsoon depressions and cyclones formation in Bay of Bengal has increased.

  • Water shortages has been attributed to rapid urbanization and industrialization, population growth and inefficient water use, which are aggravated by changing climate and its adverse impacts on demand, supply and water quality.
  • Salt water from the Bay of Bengal is reported to have penetrated 100 km or more inland along tributary channels during the dry season. (Allison,. 2003)

–              The precipitation decline and droughts has resulted in the drying up of wetlands and severe degradation of ecosystems. ( Cruz, 2007)

2.4 Areas and communities potentially be impacted by climate change

Nonetheless, nature is harsh on Bangladesh. The country could be considered as the nature’s laboratory on disasters. Except volcanoes, someone can think of any other natural disasters in Bangladesh. The rivers swell with summer monsoons, filling Bangladesh’s vast flood-plain and submerging a quarter to a third of the land in a typical year -and up to two-thirds in the worst of years. Several cyclones usually tear through the heart of the country each year, drowning people in storm surges and ripping up trees and homes. Less sudden calamities-droughts in the country’s few highland areas, erosion of the river banks and coastlines — also rob people of food and land. No country and people know this better than Bangladesh, where millions of people suffer from disasters in each year. This is due to its unique geographical location, dominance of floodplains, low elevation from the sea, high population density, high levels of poverty, and overwhelming dependence on nature, its resources and services.

Therefore, in the context of country’s multifaceted vulnerability to national disasters the most critical impacts associated with climate change in Bangladesh are:  i) flood and drainage congestion; ii) reduced fresh water resources and availability; iii) occurrence of morphological processes e.g. erosion; and iv) an increased intensity and frequency of natural disasters e.g. cyclone, storm surges, floods and droughts.

Sudden disasters associated with climate change are most likely to cause profound impact in the i) South Central, South East and South West low-lying coastal areas especially prone to tropical cyclone, salinity ingression and sea-level rise; ii) The heavily populated river basin areas, especially prone to monsoon flooding and river erosion; iii) haor and hilly areas, especially prone to flash floods; and iv)  low-lying coastal islands, and river based Chars, where communities are already highly vulnerable to climate-related hazards.

Alam and Laurel (2005) noted that the population living in the coastal areas is more vulnerable than the people living in other areas.

Communities, people of those areas are at the fore-front of any risk and vulnerability though Climate change will affects everyone, though will not affect everyone equally.  On the other hand people concentrated in the country’s different country’s different Agro Ecological Zones ( AEZs) will suffer at various degrees from weather extreme events. A study (CCC 2009a) on the impacts of climate change on different Agro Ecological Zones noted that;

–              Severe and moderate river flood prone areas are mainly located in the floodplains of major rivers ( e.g. Brahmaputra-Jamuna, Meghna estuarine and low Ganges river floodplains), the Haor basin and lower Atrai basin.

–              Areas prone to moderate and severe flash floods include mainly the northern and eastern piedmont plains and Chittagong coastal plains.

–              Drought prone areas are mainly located in the in the western part, with very severe areas concentrated in the Barind Tract and adjacent to the upper Ganges-Padma river floodplain areas.

  • Active floodplains of the major rivers Teesta, Brahmaputra-Jamuna, Ganges-Padma, and the middle and young estuarine floodplains of the Meghna are the major areas prone to river erosion.
  • Areas prone to cyclone are located in the exposed coastal areas of the Ganges tidal plain, Meghna estuarine floodplain and Chittagong coastal plain.
  • Major salinity intrusion takes place in the Ganges tidal plains, with the salinity front extending into the high Ganges river floodplain and Gopalgonj-Khulna Beels in some dry months.

 Chapter Three

Bangladesh’s Response to Climate Change 

3.1 Global Level:

The Government of Bangladesh recognizes the vulnerability of the country, its people and overall development, to the adverse effects of global warming and climate change. Since 1992 from the days of the Earth Summit at Rio in Brazil, country’s political leadership has expressed concerns time and again in many formal and informal fora, at national, regional and global levels.

Besides, the political leadership of the government of Bangladesh is actively engaged and participated in international response to climate change processes, with a view to ensure that the most vulnerable country concerns are addressed in any global framework to respond to climate change. As a part of demonstrating country’s spirit and will to participate collectively to address global warming, Bangladesh ratified the United Nations Framework for Climate Change Convention (UNFCCC) in 1994 and the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.

Bangladesh was among the first 30 countries who were involved in the drafting and development of Copenhagen Accord. The government of Bangladesh was particularly concerned fixing a global target of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 degree and its inclusion to the Copenhagen Accord.

In CoP 16, State Minister for the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF), along with Australian Environment minister, led small groups of countries to meet to advance productive negotiations on finance. The small group negotiations moved forward, but without the sense of exclusivity that alienated so many small (and some large) countries in Copenhagen.

The diplomatic move of both the ministers helps establishment of a so-called Green Climate Fund to deliver financing for mitigation and adaptation. But, the Agreements name the World Bank as the interim trustee of the Fund, despite objections from many developing countries, and create an oversight board, half of which consists of donor nation representatives.  In addition, the Agreements establish a goal by developed countries to mobilize $100 billion annually by 2020 to support mitigation and adaptation in developing countries, a funding target which would include public and private resources (that is, carbon markets and private finance), bilateral and multilateral flows, as well as the Green Climate Fund.

Whether the resources ever grow to the size laid out in Copenhagen and Cancun will depend upon the individual actions of the wealthy nations of the world.

3.2 Domestic Policy Response:

The economic growth, especially increasing income and reducing poverty, which Bangladesh consistently achieved over the last 20 years, may halt-back by the impacts of climate change. It is now essential that Bangladesh undertakes required adaptation measures in order to increase countries’ resilience in areas like: health and social systems; agriculture; biodiversity and ecosystems; production systems and physical infrastructure, including the energy grid, and also undertake clean development path to contribute fulfilling of global goal of the reduction of green house gases emission.

In fact, the country is already striving to accelerate economic growth and substantially eradicate poverty by 2021 but avoiding the harsh environmental price many countries have paid in the pursuit of growth. To this end the government has prepared Vision 2021 and in the process of preparing Sixth Five Year Development Plan both of which are and will be based on the principle of sustainable development. The Government of Bangladesh’s Vision regarding management of climate change for uninterrupted and sustainable development is an integral part of the Vision 2021. Very briefly, it is to eradicate poverty, increase employment opportunity, ensure food security, provide access to energy and power, and achieve economic and social well-being of all citizen of the country. Bangladesh will achieve this goal through a strategy of pro-poor, climate resilient and low carbon development based on the four buildings blocks of the Bali Action Plan- adaptation to climate change, mitigation, technology transfer and adequate and timely flow of funds for investments within an inviolate framework of food, energy, water, livelihoods and health security.

Recognizing this vulnerability, the Government of Bangladesh, with support from its development partners, has invested over $10 billion since its independence to make the country more resilient to natural disasters and other climate shocks (MoEF 2009).

Bangladesh prepared its Initial National Communication (INC) in October 2002; at the moment preparing the Second National Communication (SNC), which is expected to be completed by June 2011. which addressed her urgent and immediate adaptation needs. In the earlier NAPA only 15 Priority Projects was been identified; out of which the first priority project is under implementation with the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF). As NAPA only addressed only immediate and urgent Adaptation Activities, it could not address the overall requirement of the adaptation activities of the country. Under this Backdrop Bangladesh took the initiative to prepare Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP).

Besides the BCCSAP, the government also has its three-year poverty reduction strategy, the  which draws on the BCCSAP. The strategy is structured around five main themes and five supporting strategies. Tackling climate change, along with caring for the environment, is one of the supporting strategies. Since 2006, the government has been using a strategic budgeting process to align its expenditure with the national priorities identified in the NSAPR. Recently, new initiatives to mainstream climate change have been launched. 

3.3. National Adaptation Programme of Action

Adapting to the adverse effects of climate change is, along with mitigation, a major area of action for the Parties under the Convention. A key obligation envisaged for State Parties is the formulation of Adaptation Strategies. The importance of adaptation was reaffirmed in the Delhi Ministerial Declaration on Climate Change and Sustainable Development. The Declaration notes, for example, that “adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change is of high priority for all countries. Developing countries are particularly vulnerable, especially the least developed countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The main focus of the LDC work programme are the national adaptation programmes of action (NAPAs), which provide a process for LDCs to identify priority activities that respond to their urgent and immediate needs with regard to adaptation to climate change. The rationale for NAPAs rests on the limited ability of LDCs to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. In order to address the urgent adaptation needs of LDCs, a new approach was needed that would focus on enhancing adaptive capacity to climate variability, which itself would help address the adverse effects of climate change.

As a response to the decision of the Seventh Session of the Conference of the Parties. The preparation process was guided by the a high powered Project Steering Committee headed by the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests and members from other key ministries, departments and agencies including Ministry of Finance and Planning.

The NAPA highlighted three impact associated with climate change: Rise in sea, level, changing patterns in rainfall, and increase in frequency and intensity of extreme events such as floods and tropical cyclone. The document recommended 15 projects for ‘immediate and urgent implementation’ arguing that any delay in implementation would increase vulnerability and/ or increase adaptation costs later.

As NAPA only addressed only immediate and urgent Adaptation Activities, it could not address the overall requirement of the adaptation activities of the country. Under this Backdrop Bangladesh took the initiative to prepare Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan (BCCSAP). In 2009 Bangladesh prepared the BCCSAP having six thematic areas to address her vulnerabilities in different sectors.

3.4 Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan

Following the massive destruction caused by cyclone SIDR in 2007, the United Kingdom (UK) Government evinced its interest to support Bangladesh in climate change adaptation. To discuss the impacts of climate change and shed light on the current challenges, in March 2008, the 1st “Bangladesh-UK Climate Change Conference” held in Dhaka. In this conference, representatives from International Financial Institutions (IFIs) and developed partners (DPs) said explicitly that helping Bangladesh on climate change-related issues is on their list of priorities. And, in this relation, they would consider creation of a “Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MDTF)” for Bangladesh to support climate change adaptation and mitigation actions.

But, the challenge was how to scale up such investment under MDTF. Recognizing this need, Bangladesh prepared itswhich was launched in the 2nd UK-Bangladesh Climate Conference, held in London on 10 September 2008. Following the establishment of current democratic government in Bangladesh in December 2008, the ‘Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan’ (BCCSAP) further put to expert review and an updated version of the same was published in 2009.

The fundamental objective of the BCC MDTF is to support implementation of Bangladesh’s Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan, BCCSAP, a ten-year program (2009-2018) as well as implementation of similar activities that would be aimed at building the capacity and resilience of the country to meet the challenge of climate change. This is to be noted that the BCCSAP aims to build a climate resilient society and economy in Bangladesh through adaptation to the climate change as well as mitigation following a low carbon development path.

BCCSAP identified 44 programme areas under which diversified projects can be undertaken in different vulnerable sectors of the country. BCCSAP is a living document, which requires US$5 billion (10 billion) during the first five years.

The BCC MDTF will finance activities designed to achieve the BCCSAP’s goals and support one or more of the BCCSAP’s themes; these are-

 Theme 1: Food security, social protection and health:

Undertake series of activities related to food security, safe housing, employment and access to basic services including health. 

Theme 2: Comprehensive disaster management:

Activities related to further strengthening of comprehensive disaster management systems to deal with the increasingly frequent and severe natural catastrophes as a result of climate change.

Theme 3: Infrastructure:

Undertake activities to ensure that existing infrastructure is well maintained and fit for purpose and put in place urgently needed infrastructure to deal with the likely short and medium-term impacts of climate change.

Theme 4: Research and knowledge management:

Carrying out of a series of activities to estimate the likely scale and timing of climate change impacts on different sectors of the economy in order to inform planning of future investment strategies.

Theme 5: Mitigation and low carbon development:

Carrying out of a series of activities to reduce Bangladesh’s carbon emission, now and in the future.

Theme 6: Capacity building and institutional strengthening:

Carrying out of a series of activities to strengthen the capacity of Bangladesh’s government ministries and agencies, civil society and the private sector.  

3.5. Financing to Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Actions:

The government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with four EU member countries and the European Commission to set up the Multi Donor Trust Fund (now named as Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund) of $110 million for the implementation of BCCSAP. But the debate on the involvement of the World Bank as an independent trustee on the management and governance as well as government’s strive to establish country’s sovereign and democratic ownership over the management of any climate fund delayed the whole process of BCCSAP implementation. Therefore lack of adequate financing both from multilateral and bi-lateral funding mechanism delaying the implementation of BCCSAP.

The uncertainty and inadequacy of finance from the multilateral mechanisms as well as complicacy of accessing to the funds from the bi-lateral sources provoked the Government of Bangladesh to finance climate change adaptation initiatives from its own revenue income. , In  with an initial capitalization of 3 billion takas ($45 million) from its budget to support projects on climate change adaptation and mitigation as identified in the BCCSAP to be managed by the MoEF. In 2010, the government ramped up its contribution to this fund and so far contributed US$ 200 million over the last two fiscal years to implement both adaptation and mitigation activities based on the BCCSAP. Government has approved 34 government projects of various Ministries and Agencies, which is under various stages of implementation. Government has also approved 28 NGO projects recently.

Meantime, to ensure proper utilization and management of Climate Change Trust Fund (CCTF) for the implementation of BCCSAP 2009, the government established a Trustee Board which comprises with 17 members (Annex 1 and 2). Under the chairmanship of the Minister/State Minister of the ministry Environment and Forest to the Trust the secretary of the same ministry will serve as the member secretary. The non-government members, 2 out of 17, will serve the Trust for three year period but there is no specified life-span of the other Trust members as well as the Trust itself.

Under the Climate Change Trust Fund the Ministry of Environment and Forest finalized setting-up of a separate unit ‘Climate Change Unit-CCU’ which is made responsible for ensuring efficient implementation of the projects/programmes undertaken by other ministries, departments and NGOs. Meanwhile, an additional secretary has been appointed to lead the CCU.  Staff members of the CCU also will serve as the member of ‘technical committee’ who will assist the Trustee Board in selecting appropriate project proposal for implementation.

3.6 The World’s Response to Climate Change

The First World Climate Conference in 1979 identified climate change as an urgent world problem and issued a declaration calling on governments to anticipate and guard against potential climate hazards. The public debate was advanced at the Toronto Conference in 1988, when more than 340 participants from 46 countries recommended the development of a comprehensive global framework convention to protect the atmosphere. In 1988 following a proposal by Malta, the United Nations General Assembly addressed climate change for the first time by adopting Resolution 43/53. This recognised that:

“climate change is a common concern of mankind, since climate is an essential condition which sustains life on earth”, ………. “necessary and timely action should be taken to deal with climate change within a global framework …” 

In the same year the World Meteorological Organsiation (WMO) along with United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), to assess the magnitude, estimate impacts and propose strategies for responding to climate change. The IPCC presented their first assessment report in 1990, which formed the basis for negotiations under the UN General Assembly on a climate convention beginning in late 1990. The Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change (INC) was established in the same year by the General Assembly (Resolution 45/212). The finalised text of the Committee was presented at the Rio Conference in 1992, which received the endorsement (since then known as the of 158 countries including Bangladesh.  As of September 2006, a total of 189 countries of the 191 member nation states of the UN have joined the Convention. It is therefore clear that the Convention is one of the most universally supported international agreements in existence.

According to Article 2, the ultimate objective of the Convention is “to achieve, ….. stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [originating in human activity] interference with the climate system”.

To this end State Parties have been urged in Article 3 of the Convention to:“…cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem” It goes on to recognise the “different contributions to global environmental degradation”  by State Parties and on that basis envisages States having,  “common but differentiated responsibilities”. The Convention then goes on to make a profound admission that ,”the developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command”. Working out the extent, modalities and dimensions of this commitment in relation to adaptation, mitigation, technology transfer and financing has been at the centre of negotiations at the various Conferences of the State Parties (CoP).

The Conferences of the State Parties (CoP) to the Convention is the ultimate decision-making authority for the implementation of the Convention. Since the endorsement of the UNFCCC, fourteen CoPs have been held with the first one in Berlin in 1995 and the 14th in Posnan, Poland in 2008. The 15th Conference of the State parties will be held at Copenhagen next December 2009.

A number of significant decisions have been made in the Conferences of the Parties, among which remarkable are the adoption of the Kyoto Protocol at CoP 3 in 1997, the Delhi Ministerial Declaration on Climate Change and Sustainable Development at CoP 8 in 2002, adoption of the Bali Road Map at CoP 13 in 2007, Copenhagen Accord at CoP 15 in 2009.

Chapter Four

Bangladesh’s Position on Climate Change Negotiation

4.1 First Conference of Parties (COP1)

Since the first Conference of the Parties (COP1) have had strong presence in the negotiation process. Bangladesh led LDC group in 2005 and 2006, played significant role in the adoption of Bali action Plan and farming of Copenhagen Accord respectively in CoP 13 in 2007 and CoP 15 in 2009.

The most important decision at Bali was the establishment of a new Ad Hoc Working Group (AWG) on Long-term Cooperative Action (LCA) under the UNFCCC to undertake a comprehensive process to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action, now up to and beyond 2012, in order to reach an agreed outcome and adopt a decision at Conference of the Parties 15 in Copenhagen in December 2009. As Parties could not come to a decision for a legally binding agreement on AWG-LCA and AWG-KP in CoP 15 in 2009 and also not even in the CoP 16 in 2010; the mandate of these two bodies were extended up to COP 17. Parties are negotiating to come to a consensus decision on the following issues where Bangladesh as an active member of G 77 and China Group coordinated negotiation, particularly on adaptation and finance.

Bangladesh, along with other country parties agrees on the broad agreement that climate change is a global problem and all countries of the world must participate in combating it and the roles they should perform are, as stated in the Convention according to the principles of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”.

The emission reduction responsibilities must be carried out by the Annex-1 countries; further they must come up with adequate financial and technological support for mitigation activities in developing countries.

Financial resources should also be provided to developing countries particularly the most vulnerable developing countries to implement adaptation activities in those vulnerable countries. Though LDCs have no responsibility for emission reductions but Bangladesh stands ready to do so if technological and financial support is provided adequately.

In line with LDC position, Bangladesh in principle supports 45% emission reduction by 2020 and 85-95% by 2050 by Annex I Parties. Contain the emission peaking by 2015. All these are expected to achieve the global goal of reaching concentration of GHGs in atmosphere of no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) by 2100 and keeping the temperature rise to be well below 2°C (1.5°C).

Under the shared vision, Bangladesh has always insisted that the particular vulnerabilities of the LDCs should be recognized; and has emphasized the right to survival as well as that of ensuring sustainable development of the most vulnerable countries.

4.2 Position on the Mitigation of the Annex 1 Countries 

Mitigation is the most contentious issue in the negotiation process; Commitment by Annex I Parties so far falls far short of what Bangladesh along with G77 and China and LDCs are asking for; on the contrary the advanced developing countries within the Non-Annex I Parties are not willing to accept any form of commitment in the second and subsequent commitment periods. Annex I Parties are arguing for emission reduction by Non-Annex I Parties, as advanced developing countries emissions have already overtaken some of the smaller developed countries’ emission level. According to some report China has taken over USA as the largest emitter of GHGs. The over-all status regarding mitigation is still under debate and any agreement is unlikely to be achieved under mitigation.

Bangladesh calls for in association with other developing countries groups to achieve the following mitigation targets for the future climate change scenario;

–              GHG emission reductions by Annex-1 countries by 45% by 2020 and 90-95% by 2050 compared to 1990.

–              These emission reductions by Annex-1 countries to be achieved primarily through domestic efforts, but also using market-based mechanisms with a possible quantified limit, 10-15% (in their own economies).

–              Peaking of GHG concentration by 2015.

–              Keeping temperature rise within 1.5oC.

–              Keeping GHG concentration in the atmosphere below or at 350 PPM by 2100.

4.3 Position on the Mitigation of the Developing Countries (Under 1b(i) of Bali Action Plan)

Possible elements related to MRV Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMA) by developing countries and MRV of support to developing countries:

–              Developed country Parties to provide enhanced financial, technological and capacity-building support for development and implementation of nationally appropriate mitigation actions of developing country Parties and for enhanced reporting by these Parties;

–              Set up a registry to record information on mitigation actions seeking support, and information on the provision of support linking to financial mechanism under convention;

–              Domestically supported mitigation actions will be verified domestically in accordance with general guidelines under the Convention and develop general guidelines for domestic verification;

–              Supported actions will be measured, reported and varied in accordance with requirements of entity providing support.

–              Enhance reporting in Non-Annex I National Communications on mitigation actions including both supported and unsupported NAMA, and support received in accordance with revised guidelines for Non-Annex I national Communications; SBSTA may develop this revised guidelines;

–              Submit GHG inventories and information on mitigation actions through National Communications every 3 to 4 years. LDCs and SIDs will submit National Communication every 5-6 years depending on their national GHG emissions subject to provisions of financial and technical support;

–              Agree to consider these National Communications within a multilateral forum under the Convention and in a manner that is facilitative and non-punitive fully respects national sovereignty increases transparency and accountability of mitigation actions includes a technical analysis by experts

–              Existing body like SBSTA may initiate the process for development of various modalities and guidelines to be completed by 2011.

4.4      Position on Adaptation

Bangladesh along with other vulnerable countries is demanding equal status for adaptation similar to that of mitigation. Bangladesh emphasized that adaptation is crucial for the survival of LDCs as the impacts of climate change is increasingly observed in many parts of the globe.

Nevertheless, Bangladesh emphasized that adaptation has a limit and much depends on the successful mitigation efforts. Bangladesh is pressing for the following issues under Adaptation; Bangladesh for long has been advocating for an adaptation framework for addressing adaptation actions at the ground. At the moment Parties are in broad agreement of the usefulness of an Adaptation Framework and the discussion is focusing on the elements of the Adaptation Framework.

Bangladesh is in favour of the Establishment of A New Fund under the Convention (as proposed under the Finance Chapter); to ensure a simplified and easier access of financial resources for Adaptation under the proposed New Fund. Bangladesh in Principle is in favour of a new institutional arrangement for the implementation of the Adaptation Framework and is also advocating for an Adaptation Committee.

Preferential treatment for LDCs for Adaptation Action is also being advocated by Bangladesh along other LDCs; the view is being opposed by other vulnerable developing countries especially some Latin American Countries and few Asian countries. Importance of National and Regional Centres are widely accepted by all the Parties; in addition Bangladesh has also highlighted the importance of an International Adaptation Centre for coordinated implementation of adaptation actions at the ground.

In addition Bangladesh has taken into consideration the following issues as the basis for their stand on Adaptation;

–              Mandatory contributions from Annex-I Parties for meeting the cost of adaptation in developing countries, which should come primarily from ‘public sources’.

–              Financial resources should be over and above the 0.7% of the GNI of developed countries as promised under overseas development assistance (ODA); the new climate change financial resources should not be less than 1.5% of the GDP of the Annex-I Parties, prioritizing allocation to the LDCs and SIDS.

–              Adaptation fund must be provided on a grant basis (not as concessional loans).

–              Finance should be sustainable and in line with sovereign ownership of the recipient countries, and should be free from the domination of the existing international financial architecture especially from the World Bank.

4.5. Position on Finance

Adequate and predictable financial resources are crucial for the implementation of both Adaptation and Mitigation actions. Hence financial issues are at the centre of adaptation and mitigation discussion. The negotiation under finance is centred on whether a New Fund will be created and if created, what will be the institutional arrangements of that fund. Developed Countries are questioning, in the era of a new fund what will be the role of the existing financial institutions. Bangladesh is engaged in the finance discussion based on the following basic principles;

–              The main source of funding through the financial mechanism shall be new and additional financial resources, Public sources of funds of developed countries will be the source of these funds.

–              Financial resources should be provided through the enhanced financial architecture and be under the authority, guidance, and be fully accountable to the COP.

–              Bangladesh may support the proposal of establishment of a Finance Board for the proposed financial mechanism.

–              Fast track procedures for easy and direct access of funding should be ensured.

–              Bangladesh also supports setting up of an ‘Ad-hoc’ Committee, to spearhead the process of operationalisation of the Fund under the authority and guidance of the COP, with equitable and balanced representation of the Parties.

4.6 Position on Technology Transfer

Within this overall development and climate policy context, a key issue of climate negotiation is to develop framework and mechanisms to transfer technologies from the developed countries to the developing ones to enable them to achieve development equity and environmental sustainability, and to follow a low emission, climate resilient development path. In this backdrop, increasing importance of technology issues has been given on the agenda of negotiations in the climate policy regime. For example, two of the five pillars in the Bali Plan of Action (Bali, December 2007) focued on enhanced actions on and provision of financial resources to enable technology development and transfer.

At the Poznan Strategic Program on Technology Transfer was adopted as a step towards scaling up the level of investment in technology transfer in order to help developing countries address their needs for environmentally sound technologies. Finally, the Copenhagen Accord of December 2009 contains a paragraph on the establishment in the future of a Technology Mechanism “…to accelerate technology development and transfer in support of action on adaptation and mitigation that will be guided by a country-driven approach and be based on national circumstances and priorities.”

Although, the issue of technology transfer has been discussed among the state Parties, the governmental context is that governments could basically transfer nothing. As per intellectual property rights (IPR) the technologies are owned by the private sector and therefore the governments could not transfer these. That is why trade ministers from different country Parties and representatives from the World Trade Organization (WTO) are increasingly taking part in the climate talks, basically to explore possible options of trading environment-friendly technologies developed by the Annex I country Parties.

Technology transfer to the developing countries should not just be about opening up of environmental goods and services market, but about enabling the developing countries to access and procure these goods and services, and facilitate the ability of developing countries to use these technologies for emission reduction and to adapt to climate change. Thus the trade liberalization for goods and services that has been pushed by the WTO’s multilateral trade mechanism would result in nothing unless a ‘package of capacity building and facilitation’ measure is included with the process of technology transfer. Bangladesh position on technology transfer are;

–              LDCs should be provided with necessary financial assistance and technology cooperation in upgrading indigenous technologies through innovation, creating markets for relevant technologies with the right kind of investment and enabling environment;

–              Support is to be provided to the developing countries for upgrading indigenous technologies through innovation, creating markets for relevant technologies with the right kind of investment and enabling environment, as well as promoting private sector participation between the developed and developing countries.

–              LDCs should be exempted from the obligation of patent protection of climate related technologies for adaptation and mitigation technology, as required for capacity building and development.

–              Development of Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation Technologies must be kept outside the present IPR regime.

–              Annex I Parties should support Innovative Climate Change Research and technology development and make it freely available to the developing country Parties.

–              There should be emphasis on joint research and development.

–              Patented technologies should be made available free of charge to the LDC/SIDS.

–              Compulsory licensing for already patented technologies can be means for increasing the accessibility to those technologies.

–              Bangladesh may also support the establishment of the technology mechanism to supervise overall technology development and transfer issues.

–              LDCs, SIDS, Africa should be provided with necessary financial and technological resources to assist in their efforts to upgrade indigenous technologies through innovation and properly putting them to use as well as to acquire necessary technologies from appropriate outside sources.

–              LDCs, SIDS, Africa should be exempted from obligations relating to patent protection in respect of climate change related technologies required for capacity building and development in the context of mainly adaptation but also mitigation.

–              Development of climate change adaptation and mitigation technologies must be kept outside intellectual properly rights (IPR) regime.

–              Genetic resources, that are essential for adaptation in agriculture, must not be patented by multinational or any other corporations. These should also not be considered as traded items under the IPR regime of WTO.

–              Annex-I Parties should support innovative climate change research and technology development, making the outcome available to LDCs, SIDS, and Africa free of cost.

–              The Technology Needs Assessment (TNA) process already initiated by the UNFCCC must also identify the countries where the required technology exists and include consultation meeting to discuss the availability of the needed financial support and the technology on a bilateral and/or multilateral basis.

4.7      Position on REDD

In accordance with the implementation of Bali Action Plan and Copenhagen Accord, Bangladesh share a strong commitment to an effective outcome on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries REDD at the Cancun meeting of COP16. Bangladesh consider that a successful outcome at Cancun and beyond should address key elements of measurable, reportable and verifiable MRV mechanisms for REDD, establish funding sources to implement REDD.

In the negotiation process Bangladesh emphasizes REDD schemes to recognize and adhere to the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as well as the human, civil and political rights, including rights of women, local communities and other possibly marginalized groups in forest areas, conservation of biodiversity through sustainable forest management. Bangladesh strongly believes that any REDD mechanism must adopt an overarching policy that has the protection of natural forests as its highest priority thus enhancing forest carbon stocks due to sustainable management of forests. Such protection should encompass the above ground and below ground biomass of natural forests. Biodiversity conservation is a core benefit rather than a co-benefit for mitigating against climate change. The specific position on REED is;

–              REDD mechanism should develop in full compliance with the constitutional and legal framework of each country. Bangladesh, meantime, with support from several bi-lateral donors has initiated several projects to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, increased carbon sink through the implementation of the sustainable management of forests.

–              REDD mechanism that accommodates different national circumstances and capabilities and is supported by reliable, adequate, transparent and long term funding to be provided by Annex I Parties, in addition to their current official development assistance (ODA) commitments. Funding from various other sources can be explored, majority of which should come from public sources. Annex I Parties must not use REDD as an opportunity to avoid making deep and real cuts to domestic emissions from other sources.

–              The fast track finance committed under the Copenhagen accord should cover immediate requirement of the least develop countries for REDD preparedness activities particularly capacity building for robust and credible reporting and verification requirements and pilot demonstration activities addressing the drivers of deforestation relevant to their national circumstances with a view to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and thus enhancing forest carbon stocks due to sustainable management of forests.

Chapter Five

Facts of the Failure in Copenhagen

5.1 Definition

The 15th Conference of the Parties (CoP15) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) held in Copenhagen in December 2009 unacceptably failed to produce a legally binding agreement while only managed to frame an Accord through by-passing the procedural negotiation procedure of the UN system.

The adoption of a ‘non-binding’Accord basically was a diplomatic gain by both the developed and advanced developing countries; both have kept ways open for increasing emission, both have prioritized :heir ‘self national interest’ and grossly undermined :he concern of the most vulnerable countries. In the global geo-politics, although the developed and advanced developing countries are found blocking each other but in the global climate diplomacy position of both the Parties is apparently similar.

Marked by the failure to achieve a binding agreement in Copenhagen, new polarization in climate diplomacy has emerged out to develop a complementary policy position for a comprehensive and legally binding agreement at the 16th conference of the Parties in Cancun and beyond.

5.2 Copenhagen- ‘Hope’nhagen- ‘Broke’nhagen: an event of many controversies

It was commonly expected that the Copenhagen Climate Conference would result an equitable, legally binding agreement setting targets of ambitious emission reduction, adequate and predictable finance for adaptation and technology transfer, and would provoke a path of green development to avoid dangerous climate change impacts now and in future. This process has started since 13th Conference of the Parties held in Bali in December 2007, where Bali Action Plan was adopted by the country Parties to progress the negotiation until Copenhagen. Since then, delegates have had worked on the texts under two working groups respectively of Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) and Ad Hoc Working Group on Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP). Despite having many differences on the points of negotiations, delegates worked hard to close as many of the gaps as possible and then put forward the most up-to-date documents arising from two working groups to the final plenary. Against this backdrop, the parallel attempt of the development of ‘Copenhagen Accord’ by the Danish presidency and imposition of the Accord onto the only legitimate multilateral two-track negotiation created tie real disaster. The situation also was upsetting to most of the delegates, as the Copenhagen Accord was negotiated by a selected handful of the countries in parallel to the UNFCCC two-track process (Wolfgang Strek Thus the call of the Danish Presidency to the CoP 15 to adopt tie Accord was severely criticized for embarking on ;an exclusive and illegitimate process that violated tie UN charter, principles and practices (Martin <hor2010).

While the climate negotiations had so far been ;among the most transparent international negotiations, the negotiation in Copenhagen followed un-transparent, top-down and very restrictive to the civil society participants even though they had valid accreditation and mandate of participation through out the process. In the final days of the Copenhagen talks entrance of civil society representatives was narrowed down only to few hundreds; in the last two days only 300 civil society representatives were let in.

The Copenhagen Accord could not be termed as the ‘collective effort’ of combating the climate crisis. Building of ‘collective effort’ should require effective, transparent, and responsible participation of all stakeholders- governments, civil society organizations and the market institutions- in an integrated manner ensuring that all the stakeholders work fairly in the service of global prosperity, welfare, and sustainability. But, ironically, Copenhagen Climate Summit did just the opposite thing; rather building an enabling environment for the ‘effort of collectivity’ the summit broke-down sprit and encouragement of the country Parties in setting a common vision. Copenhagen couldn’t turn itself as ‘Hope’nhagen, as was expected, rather it resulted many controversies on the methodology of the formation of a smaller group called “friends of the chair”, the way they worked and the transparency and process of decision making that played out during the meeting. All these Controversies provoked several country Parties to prevent the Accord from being formally adopted as a decision of the Conference of the Parties.

5.3 Copenhagen Accord: mere a ‘talk-shop’ of robust and ambitious mitigation

Stabilizing GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference (DAI) with the climate system is the ultimate objective of the Convention. As per science’s prediction, to save the Earth from the irreversible changes, it was commonly agreed to keep temperature rise well below 2 degree Celsius, which requires stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration (CO2-eq) at 450 parts per million. In this regard, developing world has called on industrialized countries to commit to 40 or 45 percent cuts in emissions by 2020, compared to the 1990 benchmark; while the Federated States of Micronesia preferred stabilization at as far below 350 ppm as possible to keep temperature below 1.5 degree Celsius, this also has been supported by Small Islands Developing States (SIDS) and a number of vulnerable countries.

In the Working Group discussions all the country Parties, especially the developed countries, asked for ‘robust’ and ‘ambitious’ emission reduction although the criteria of qualifying these words remained in vague as of always. Likewise, the Copenhagen Accord didn’t mention any quantitative figures of emission reduction that the developed countries would undertake after 2012, either as an integrated target or as individual country target. Though the overwhelming majority of countries associated with the Copenhagen Accord and reaffirmed that the climate change is the greatest challenge of today, and that the increase in mean global temperature should be below 2 degrees Celsius but given the nature of Accord there is no mandatory or binding emission target for the country Parties in achieving 2 degrees goal. In one hand the Accord is a bottom-up, pledge and review process; on the other hand it sets a top-down overall goal of keeping global warming well below 2 degree Celsius. The other targets like time-frame of achieving 2 degree goal, stabilization of CO2-eq to a certain level, time-frame of ‘peak-and-decline’ of emission as well as mechanisms of viable monitoring system and scope to impose sanctions in order to enforce countries in achieving their pledged targets etc. are absent in the Accord.

Accepting all the loopholes and vagueness of the Accord, more than 120 countries, contributors of more than four-fifths of the global GhG emission, have opted to endorse the Accord, and many have submitted notification of their voluntary emission reduction via the ‘Pledge and Review’ process WBGU 2010). Although the pledges of the mitigation targets by the country Parties are subject o international scrutiny but the challenge is- there s no mechanism in place to make the pledges rational in achieving the target. Furthermore, even if he current pledges are honored in full, the intended actions notified to date fall short of what is required 😮 limit the increase of the global mean temperature 😮 2 degree; rather judging from the current pledges, a global mean temperature may shoot-up o 3 degree or more by the end of the century. (J., Rogelj et. a!2010).

A recent study conducted by the UNEP summarized hat to achieve 2 degree goal, emission targets for 2020 to be 40 to 48.3 Gt CO2-eq. The current pledges of emission reductions would result emissions for 2020 at between 48.8 to 51.2 Gt CO2-?q, depending on whether high or low pledges are fulfilled. If the more ambitious pledges are fulfilled, he gap is 0.5-8.8 Gt CO2-eq, with an intermediate value of 4.7. If the low emission pledges are fulfilled, he gap is 2.9-11.2 Gt CO2-eq, with an intermediate value of 7.1, which certainly will contribute up shooting of global warming. All the relevant analysis conducted by shooting, Climate Analytics and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research concludes that the current pledges would lead to temperate increase of more than 3 degrees by 2100 (Wolfgang Strek

In the scientific viewpoint, the ‘pledge and review’ mechanism of emission reduction will not fulfill the emission reduction that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommended to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas (CO2-eq) at 450 parts per million. Even the 450 ppm level of carbon dioxide is associated with a 52 percent risk of overshooting tie goal of limiting the average global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels. A temperature rise of more than 2 degrees would result in dangerous disruption to the climate system, posing numerous and significant risks to human society (WBGU 2009).

5.4 Adaptation Finance: clouds but little rain

The broader strategies of combating climate change e.g. mitigation, adaptation and support to existing development and growth etc. are interlinked and equally important, while the later two are specifically important and real challenge to the developing countries as they require new, additional and incremental financial resources for adaptation and undertaking clean development path. In this context, the Bali Action Plan referred the need of “improved access to adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources and also noted a provision of new and additional resources” and “innovative means of funding to assist developing country Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change”.

There have several studies in place that estimated finance required for adaptation; Oxfam estimated greater than US$50 billion (Oxfam 2007), UNDP $86 billion (UNDP 2007) and UNFCCC estimated $28-67 billion (UNFCCC 2007) per year. Another UNFCCC report on financial flows estimated financial resources needed in 2030 at US $ 130 billion for mitigation activities and several tens of possibly hundreds of billions for adaptation in developing countries only (UNFCCC 2008). On the basis of this different estimations, mostly based on certain ‘top-down’ methodologies, developing country parties asked for 1 -1.5 percent GDP of the developed countries largely from the public sources and in addition to the existing ODA commitment. China has suggested that developed countries should commit to an additional 0.5% of GDP for climate change payments to developing countries -additional to the 0.7% Monterrey Consensus ODA target (i.e. $260 billion 2007) -which currently would amount to an additional annual contribution of around $185 billion, albeit not all for adaptation (Benito Muller 2008).

Against the above estimations and expectoration, the Copenhagen Accord foresees US$ 30 billion of ‘new and additional resources’ for the period 2010-2012 as collective commitment by the developed countries ‘with balanced allocation between adaptation and mitigation’. Although the LDCs and small island developing States and Africa will have preferential access to the adaptation fund but the present commitment of adaptation fund is quite insignificant. Even, there is no indication of the amount of adaptation financing beyond 2012. Therefore, long-term funding projection for adaptation actions in the most vulnerable countries is grossly ignored in Copenhagen Accord.

The reality is bleak: a huge amount of money is needed to help implement mitigation actions – mainly in the industrialized countries – and finance required for the adaptation measures mainly in the developing countries is not a priority. Though the industrialized countries showed their ‘common and indifferent interest’ in solving their crisis, resulted from the market failure but they are so reluctant in putting forward such ‘common and indifferent interest’ to the climate crisis, historically, even today largely, has been creating by them. Still, in comparison with the 20 trillion dollars of direct bail­outs and no-strings guarantees offered by governments to the private sector during the financial Isis, the amount needed to address climate change is relatively modest (Antonio Tricarico 2010).

Again, in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation, the developed countries commit to a goal of mobilizing jointly US$ 100 billion a year by 2020 for developing countries. As noted in the Accord, the US$ 100 billion goal will be achieved through mobilizing funds from a wide variety of sources- public and private, bi-lateral and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance. This is further a breakthrough to the ‘market based’ solution of mitigation actions e.g. ‘cap and trade’ through REDD and REDD plus and COM, which is complicated financialisation of the carbon market, which could again lead us to a new and risky financial bubble.

5.5.Killing Kyoto: revival of Bush’s strategy

As per Bali Action Plan, adopted at CoP 13 in December 2007, the negotiation has been proceeding under two tracks; a) The Ad hoc Working Group on Long Term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) which is tasked negotiating the enhancement of actions to ensure full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention. In relation to negotiation on mitigation, AWG-LCA intents to negotiate commitments for Annex 1 countries, in particular those have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, for example the USA. AWG-LCA also negotiates ‘nationally appropriate mitigation actions-NAMA of developing countries with technology, financing and capacity-building support from the Annex 1 countries, b) The AWG-KP, which is tasked with setting the reduction targets for the post-2012 commitment period at a time when scientific evidence demands deep cuts in 1 he range of at least 25-40% by 2020. Only the Kyoto Protocol provides a commitment periods from 2008-2012 and sets legally binding aggregate and individual targets for Annex I Parties, varying from country to country, to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Almost all the developed countries including Japan, Australia and the European Union raised united voice to dismantle the Kyoto, collapse the two (racks into one and produce one single legal outcome through ensuring inclusion of the advanced developing countries. The position of the United Sates is not even comparable with others; it neither intents to ratify Kyoto Protocol nor agrees or a legally binding agreement; rather prefers a bottom-up’ kind of ‘implementing Agreement’, Through a set of clear decisions under the NFCCC, this would formalize and strengthen the existing provisions of the Climate Change Convention for voluntary, non binding and economy-wide emission commitments to reduce the GhG and report on emissions. Such an idea of pledge and review’ approach plainly contrasts with he Kyoto Protocol and leaves countries leeway when it comes to what kind of targets to adopt and how they meet them (Kristian Tangen 2010). While the Kyoto’s approach specifies targets for a specific period and assessments on whether those targets have been reached, the process called for in the Copenhagen Accord resembles the negotiations in the context of the World Trade Organization (WTO), where every few years countries make new pledges to reduce their trade barriers.

Kyoto protocol not a ‘protocol’ in literary term, it has created a global coalition between politicians and experts and bureaucrats and civil society organizations and people across boundaries. It has outlined an integrated approach effacing the challenges of climate change. It also sets quantitative emission reduction targets, the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, approaches, and efforts, as well as preferential treatment on the basis of the common but differentiated responsibilities (Jan Pronk 2009). The Protocol also highlighted the importance of adaptation measures, support to the capacity building, innovation of green technologies and technology transfer to the vulnerable countries to adapt to the climate change impacts and to initiate low-carbon development path, which is ideally a new element in the developmental policy. In addition, Kyoto Protocol gave flexibility to the Annex country parties in fulfilling their mitigation targets across borders

Up to now, Kyoto succeeded to create dialogue among people with different insights and different interests and it created a common aim to succeed. All the country Parties, except US, have endorsed the Kyoto and all the country Parties regard the agreement they made under Kyoto on mitigation and adaptation measures. Now, the approach of killing Kyoto or picking the preferable options, what was told as ‘cherry picking’, by the developed countries remind the criticism of the former US president, George W Bush, who once said that ‘Kyoto is dead’. At that time there was ‘unified global atmosphere’ to denounce the statement made by George Bush, now at this very moment the world also require a joint atmosphere to keep Kyoto Protocol functioning towards its next phase and with unified force and commitment of all county Parties.

5.6 Multi-polarity in world politics and way forward to Cancun

In the 13th Conference of the Parties (CoP 13) held in Bali in 2007, so as in the 15th Conference of the Parties held in Copenhagen, the country parties were found negotiating through three major blocks

  1. i) the European Union, ii) the United States, supported by Australia, Japan and Canada and, iii) the G77 and China. There are also other regional bIocs also like; African Group; LDC Group; The Alliance of Small Island Developing States-AOSIS; Environmental Integrity Group; Umbrella Group etc.

Among the negotiating blocs, the G 77 and China is he major one, comprises with 132 countries, which includes developing, LDCs, and the small island developing States. The G 77 and China is the platform of almost all the Non Annex country Parties hat are historically not responsible for the present climate crisis. But given the context of disparity in economic comparability and GDP growth of the countries the ‘G77 and China’ is the most heterogeneous Group. Such differences in economic comparability and differentiated position n the negotiation process resulted ‘triangular climate diplomacy’ in Copenhagen. For example; the EU took its position to produce a single legal outcome and attempted to push, primarily, the US, and also the advanced developing countries, into taking binding commitments. On contrary, the US position was for an ‘Implementing Agreement’ which was neither obligatory nor under the premise of two-track negotiation. The advanced developing countries, therefore, referred to the historical responsibility of all the industrialized countries, including of the Kyoto non-party the US, and wanted them to lead in combating climate crisis as hey committed to in Article 3.1 of the UN framework Convention.

To counter the appeal of Annex 1 countries for inclusion of advanced developing countries in Ending mitigation commitment China, India, Brazil and South Africa emerged behind the G77 and China. Significant divisions also was seen among other members of G77 and China group; the SIDS and LDCs demanded LCA negotiations culminated o a Protocol and would function alongside the Kyoto Protocol. This group also demanded referential allocation of adaptation finance, what the other advanced developing countries didn’t support. Therefore, given the complexity of global climate policy the division of the Parties to the UNFCCC into two groups-Annex I and non-Annex I countries- is no longer appropriate (WBGU 2010). Within the Group of G77 and China, countries that would be affected most-often termed as ‘Most Vulnerable Countries’- are asking for preferential and differential treatment in comparison to other developing countries. In fact, some level differentiation within the group of non-Annex I countries is needed in order to speed up the negotiation process.

Marked by the failure to achieve a binding agreement in Copenhagen, polycentric approaches to climate policy are increasingly been mooted at present, for both conceptual and pragmatic region (Keohane and Victor 2010). These polycentric approaches and new alliances could act as a counterforce to the US and advanced developing countries objectively to develop a complementary policy position for a comprehensive, legally binding agreement under the UNFCCC. Without a complementary policy position among the advanced developing and developed countries, including the US, positive outcomes and breakthroughs in climate policy will be hardly possible.

Chapter Six

Demands of Fund

6.1 Climate Change Trust Fund Act, 2010

The government will promulgate an act to use climate change fund judiciously and transparently so that benefits reach the affected people properly. Bangladesh is one of the most precarious countries facing climate change. People of this country must be protected from its consequences. Therefore, we are moving forward on this law,” Abul Kalam Azad, press secretary to the prime minister’s office, told reporters after the cabinet meeting.

The government has already allocated Tk 7 billion to build this fund, Azad said.

The cabinet approved the draft Climate Change Trust Fund Act, 2010. The draft will soon be finalised and sent to the law ministry for vetting.

Earlier on August 24, the cabinet approved Climate Change Trust Fund, which was supposed to be registered under the Bengal Trust Act 1882.

The law ministry suggested us to make a law in this regard since general people are the beneficiaries, Environment and Forest Secretary Mihir Kanti Barua told The Daily Star yesterday.

He said the act is needed to bring the entire process–from generating fund to approval of projects and use of the fund through a trustee board–under a strong legal coverage. He said 66 percent of the fund would be spent on six designated areas marked under Bangladesh Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan while 34 percent would be in bank for crisis situation.

The prime minister told the meeting that apart from assistance from international agencies and countries, Bangladesh has taken various steps on its own to face the adverse impacts of global climate change. Bangladesh is one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change. The government has moved to make the act to protect people and their property from the adverse effects of climate change, said Prime Minister’s Press Secretary Abul Kalam Azad after the meeting.

He said the government has already allocated Tk 700 crore for the fund. The Ministry of Environment and Forests would allocate the fund to relevant NGO projects.

Ainun Nishat, senior adviser on climate change for the International Union for Conservation of Nature, Asia, said Bangladesh should prepare for judicious utilisation of the fund.? Huge local and foreign fund will be channelled to the trust. Therefore, a mechanism is needed for the fund management,?

6.2 Bangladesh demands funds for population at risk

The Bangladesh delegation to the Copenhagen talks has demanded allocation from the adaptation fund in proportion to the percentage of its population exposed to climate change. Bangladesh has made significant progress in many sectors including food production and population control over the years but these achievements might be lost due to the impacts of climate change, the speakers told a global audience at a presentation at the Bella Center in Copenhagen. The country has devised its s …

6.3 Climate Change Resilience Fund was established: Bangladesh To Receive $110 Million

After a long time period Bangladesh finally reached the Climate Change Resilience Fund .The government of Bangladesh has set up a fund to channel a minimum of $110 million to millions of citizens around the country to strengthen resilience to the effects of climate change. The ground-breaking Bangladesh Climate Change Resilience Fund was established on Monday with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Bangladesh government and five development partners, a British High …

6.4 Bangladesh to demand $100b-climate fund in 2020

Bangladesh will demand increasing the long term climate fund to 100 billion dollar in 2020, said State Minister for Environment and Forest Dr Hasan Mahmud at the ministry yesterday.Bangladesh on Wednesday called for billions of dollars to be made available quickly for its fight against climate change, as United Nations’ environment talks entered their third day in Mexico. The low-lying country is vulnerable to the catastrophic impact of global warming with natural disasters killing nearly …

6.5 Strong laws for safe climate : Bangladesh set to establish 64 environment courts

Bangladesh is set to establish environment courts in 64 districts as the government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has placed the Environment Court Bill 2010 in the Parliament, seeking provisions for allowing citizens to file cases against polluters and for setting up at least one environment court in each district. The government has also placed the Climate Change Trust Bill 2010 in the legislature. Two bills were placed in parliament yesterday seeking to increase power and number of e …

6.6 We are not begging any mercy from anyone. Rather we want justice as the worst victim of climate change

The UN-sponsored Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen heard voices of concern and complaint on the second day, as delegates of Bangladesh and Nepal said they were disappointed that a draft of potential treaty on climate framed by the BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India, and China) group does not address the main concerns of the poor and the least developed countries. Saber Hossain Chowdhury, leader of the Bangladesh parliament delegation to COP15, stressed the “need to talk a lot more on th …

6.7 Unite against World Bank Conspiracy with Multi-Donor Trust Fund

The Bangladeshi government objects to grant money being channelled through the World Bank, which it says will attach unfavourable “strings and conditions. The Bangladeshi government is refusing to accept a £60m donation from Britain to help it cope with the impact of global warming, because of a dispute over how the money will be provided, the gurdian wrote it on 15 February 2010 while high level development forum held at Dhaka among Government of Bangladesh and its Development Partners. Officials in the Department for International Development (Dfid) are insisting that the money, part of a pledge to provide developing countries with climate finance, is channelled through the World Bank. Bangladesh has objected to the role of the bank, which it says will attach unfavourable “strings and conditions”.

“If this money is channelled through the World Bank and the IMF it will attract strings and conditions which are not favourable to Bangladesh”, said a spokesman for the Bangladeshi government. “If the money goes [via the bank] then it does not go to its real purpose. [We] want it to go through the UN.”

“We are strongly against the World Bank’s involvement in handling the climate fund. DFID should give the money straight to the Bangladesh government rather than giving it to the World Bank to disburse it,” Food and Disaster Management Minister Abdur Razzaque told IRIN on 16 February 2010. “It should be a country-led programme rather than a World Bank-led one,he said, adding that there were expectations the Bank would attach “unacceptable strings and conditions to its programme.

6.7.1 Lesson Learnt from World Bank:

World Bank denies Soverign Policy Formulation Process:  On 09 November 2009,  World Bank sent a letter to the finance minister asking the government to put on hold local procurements of 24 WB-funded projects in Bangladesh while Bangladesh formulated Public Procurement Act independently without taking concern of World Bank. As a soverign country, Bangladesh could formulate policies independently, good or bad – only people of Bangladesh have right to keep pressure to Government to make policies pro-people. But World Bank put his fingers on soverignty in national policy formulation. When government formulate public procurement act independently, then World Bank suspended implementation of all its projects. At last government managed it by keeping promises to implement WB project as per procurement guidelines given by WB and formulated public procurement act will be followed in other national activities.

Agriculture Minister Motia Chowdhury also expressed her dissatisfaction over the World Bank’s (WB) lengthy process of releasing funds for development projects, saying such nature of funding cannot really help achieve a goal. It is the WB that takes long time to release the funds and then they pin the blame on the government for the slow pace and say the government is embedded in corruption.

Bangladesh is implementing National Agriculture Technology Project (NATP), an over Tk 600 crore project, where the WB is providing a chunk of the fund for research and extension works. Under this project, Government wants to form farmers organisation, but World Bank denies it and suggested to involve NGOs in this process. Tension between World Bank and Government is increasing while government argued continously for forming farmers organisation. Already the agriculture minister expressed her unhappiness with World Bank on lengthy process of fund disbursement due to continued disagreement on diffirent issues on the NATP project.

6.7.2 National and Global Level Protest Against World Bank involvement in Multi-Donor Trust Fund:

A DFID spokesperson said, “The government of Bangladesh will have full control over how the fund will be spent, with the World Bank simply administering the money. This approach is a tried and tested financial mechanism that ensures UK investment is used effectively. We condemn DFID also for their approches like World Bank. Bangladesh has adequate capacity to deal finance effectively. Earlier the development partners administered a lot of projects under financial mechanism suggested by the development partners which created a chunk of opportunities of corruption and Bangladesh became number one corrupted country. So, they should have right to show any sign and syntoms of corruption while they kept opportunities to be corrupted people. We strongly opposes the approaches of DFID.

World Bank supposed to take  8pc of climate fund for World Bank for administering Multi-Donor Trust Fund.  The World Bank will take away $8 million from the $98 million climate change fund pledged to Bangladesh so far, suggests a draft concept note of the government.  Of the climate aid, $5 million will go to the global lender as administration fees, and $3 million for project/proposal preparation, appraisal and supervision and analytical work, and capacity building activities related to climate change. The amount will make up more than 8 per cent of the climate fund so far pledged to the country by British and Danish official agencies. Bangladesh has adequate experience on risk reduction and disaster management. So, we have capacity to prepare our own projects. There have not any need to take assistance from World Bank.

We, 21 Citizen Organisation protested involvement of World Bank in Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MTDF) during Bangladesh Development Forum held at Dhaka on 15-16 February 2010 and saw a strong voices of Government against World Bank involvement. People of Bangladesh got a hope! The the global citizen group also  protested, which bought together different groups, including Jubilee Debt Campaign and the Bangladeshi diaspora group, European Action Group on Climate Change in Bangladesh, was held in solidarity with campaigners in Bangladesh who were simultaneously creating a human chain outside the Bangladesh Development Forum in Dhaka, which the UK government is attending. The UK’s Department for International Development has said it wants Bangladesh to make a decision on the proposed deal, called the Multi Donor Trust Fund, during this meeting. However, the deal in its current form is being strongly resisted by Bangladeshi civil society and government because of concerns about how the money would be administered.

Tim Jones of the WDM said: “The UK must be careful not to fall into the pattern of its former colonial ways by imposing conditions on an independent country. The World Bank is a deeply mistrusted institution that through its lending to developing countries has increased inequality, carbon emissions and debt in those countries.

6.7.3 Cut Down World Bank Finger in Multi-Donor Trust Fund (MTDF)

In a recent meeting with State Minister Dr. Hasan Mahmud EU Ambassador remarks that, MDTF (multi donor trust fund) on climate change would be managed by World Bank. Although Minister remarks was a bit different that Bangladesh will have sole authority and technical assistance will be taken from World Bank. Since the beginning we are protesting any World Bank involvement in the fund, we are proposing that Bangladesh should have sovereignty over the fund and there should be separate foundation or board. Initially it was the proposal from DFID now EU has jioned in the band wagon.We do like to protest the remarks, ie, all sort of conspiracy / pressure  of the donors whatever EU or DFID on this, EquityBD, along with 21 citizen group is  going to organise a rally / human chain in front of National Press Club, Dhaka, at 11 am  15th February 2010. We also invite you to join the programme and express your soliderity against World Bank.

Chapter Seven

Separate Opinion of Climate Jurist 

7.1 Post Climate Change Summit & Immediate Tasks for Bangladesh

Bangladesh has to enhance its capacity to absorb inflow of climate change funds to implement projects for adaptation and mitigation with transparency and accountability, speakers said at a roundtable.

Noted climate change experts from government and non-government sectors emphasized the need for capacity building for international negotiations with an eye to the up coming interim meetings before COP 16 to be held in Mexico.

At the roundtable organized by The Daily Star in its conference room on January 2 on ‘Post-Copenhagen Immediate Task for Bangladesh’, the speakers insisted on a review of the Copenhagen Accord by the government, to find out its loopholes and weaknesses, and to work accordingly.

7.1.1 Saber Hossain Chowdhury MP

Identifying the topic as very timely, Saber Hossain Chowdhury MP, the chair of all party group of parliamentarians on climate change, thanked The Daily Star for taking the initiative for the discussion.

He emphasised on thorough analysis of the Copenhagen Accord, and on adopting a national position on it.

We should find out the weaknesses and strengths of the accord, he said.

Citing a report published in the UK, Saber Hossain said, according to the mitigation target mentioned in the accord, the world temperature will rise more than 3 degrees by the end of the century.

So we should do a sensitivity analysis regarding what will be the difference of the impacts on Bangladesh if the temperature rises by 2 degrees and if it rises by 3 degrees, he added.

If the temperature rises that much, Saber said, it will have a huge impact on countries like Bangladesh.

We may have to look for 15 to 20 billion dollars, if the temperature rises that much, he said. The government has already allocated money for social safety net for climate change victims, but did not bring that out at the Copenhagen summit.

He also emphasised on formulating Bangladesh’s position on the accord in relation to its position in different international and regional coalitions including the grouping of G-77 and China.

So the government needs to analyse the accord and realise whether Bangladesh should accept it, he said.

He also emphasised on increasing the capacity of the government for implementing different projects, and the monitoring capacity of the parliamentarians as well, since ultimately it is the parliamentarians who will monitor government actions.

If we don’t do that, we will not progress much, he said.  He raised a question about what will happen to the people already affected by climate change, if Bangladesh does not get fund from the international community.

So we should take preparations for that as well, he said.

7.1.2 Dr Mihir Kanti Majumder

Secretary to the Ministry of Environment and Forest Mihir Kanti Majumder said the government already developed a climate change strategic and action plan with six thematic areas to work on, keeping adaptation as its main target.

The secretary said the post Copenhagen situation is crucial, and the government already initiated a discussion with the participants who had negotiated there.

About a future action plan, the secretary said the government already initiated a discussion on that too.

We have held discussions in the ministry to review the outcome of the Copenhagen summit. And hope to arrange another meeting within 15 days to finalise the action plan, he said.

We expect that a series of informal talks will be held before Cop 16. In Copenhagen we projected Bangladesh as the most vulnerable country in the world, and the world leaders accepted it, he added.

About the climate change fund of the government, the secretary said the government formed a fund of Tk 700 crore.

We will be able to use 462 crore this year, because a portion will be kept for the future. And for that we invited project proposals, already we have received hundreds of them, and also allocated 52 crore taka to government projects last week, he announced.

The secretary said the government is emphasising on adaptation while also paying attention to mitigation. Already the government started an afforestation programme on coastal embankments built by the Water Development Board.

We think by the end of February we will be able to utilise most of the fund, he said.

The government will soon enact the Climate Change Trust Fund Act, which will give a clear guideline for using the fund, he said.

The environment ministry will soon set up a climate change unit, and climate change cells would be opened in 12 others ministries within 15 days, he added.

Micro level government planning is going on involving different ministries, and Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies (BIDS) is assessing the cost of adaptation, said the secretary. 

7.1.3 Dr Asaduzzaman

Dr Asaduzzaman, research director of BIDS, emphasised on capacity building for project implementation and for quick approval for project proposals.

Criticising the present project approval process, he said the present procedure is extremely cumbersome, lengthy, and wasteful.

We must simplify the process, he added. He said the government should implement MRV (measurable, reportable and verifiable) method of spending money on different projects.

He also said the government now has a little fund absorbing capacity. The Ministry of Environment and Forest absorbs no more than 15 to 20 million dollars a year.

But in future the government might have to spend much more, he said.
If the government gets the adequate fund and builds the capacity to spend it fruitfully, then Bangladesh alone will need at least 5 billion dollars for adaptation, and another 5 billion for mitigation in the next five years, said the development expert.

Now Bangladesh needs to show the world that we can do it, he said adding that the government should prioritise projects on the basis of needs on the ground.

He said different ministries needs to sensitise themselves regarding climate change. He suggested strengthening of ministries so they may adopt climate resilient and climate friendly development projects.

7.1.4 Dr Ainun Nishat

Dr Ainun Nishat, senior adviser on climate change for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Asia, said funding might also come as incentives for prevention of deforestation and for eco-friendly forest management under the UN programme for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries (REDD Plus), adopted under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

He said the Ministry of Environment and Forest should use as a ready reference to its afforestation plan, its own document that has already been prepared.

The Bangladesh government should immediately start the process of implementing the Copenhagen Accord, he said.

He reminded the roundtable that in the Copenhagen Accord a global climate change fund of 10 billion US dollars per year has been committed for the next three years, which will be increased to 100 billion dollars in 2020.

He urged the Bangladesh government to follow the low carbon pathway.

Definitely Bangladesh will prepare for adaptation, but at the same time the country should also think about power generation from wind and solar energy using advanced technology that has been offered for developing countries in the accord, he said.

Bangladesh should also use discretion in utilising the available climate funds for adaptation, mitigation, and cleaner technology programmes, he said.

We must be prepared to utilise the available climate funds, but the funds will not come unless we have the capacity to utilise it, he cautioned.

The smaller groups of the least developed countries (LDCs), small island countries, and the African countries are becoming very vocal in climate negotiations within the grouping of G-77 and China, he noted.

Bangladesh, as one of the countries that are most vulnerable to the climate change impacts, should pursue an appropriate political coalition to protect its national interest in international negotiations, he said.

Bangladesh is vulnerable to sea level rise, repeated cyclones, deeper penetration of saline water, erratic rainfall, flood, drought, riverbank erosion and many more.

 7.1.5 Dr Atiq Rahman

Dr Atiq Rahman is the executive director of Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS) and one of the lead authors of the fourth report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

He said climate change is no more an environmental issue only; rather it is central to development.

So it cannot be and should not be a matter of the Ministry of Environment and Forest. It should go beyond that, he added.

It has to be integrated into the government’s development activities entailing all ministries, but the challenge is how to integrate all that, he said.

The political power of a country is crucial for effective climate change negotiations, he said adding that the grouping of G-77 and China is not exclusive for climate negotiations alone, rather it can also be equally effective for global negotiations on issues like security and disarmament.

Bangladesh has to strengthen its position within the grouping, he said. We have to assert our capacities within the system.

Accountability and transparency are the key words not only in utilisation of the funds, but also for ensuring inflow of future funds, he noted adding, on the other hand, developed countries must commit to adequacy and sustainability of climate funds.

He also suggested appointing climate ambassadors to negotiate on behalf of the government.

My suggestion is to deploy three climate ambassadors. If governments change or whatever, the climate ambassadors can negotiate on behalf of the country, he said.

He also said the government should quickly take initiatives for capacity building of its own officials and non-government officials working in the field of climate change adaptation and mitigation.

He suggested increasing the capacities of local government officials and parliamentarians as well.

He also recommended training groups of specialists on climate change adaptation and mitigation, technology transfer, and related research work.

 7.1.6 Dr Rezaul Karim

Dr Rezaul Karim quipped, What is the difference between failure and success of a UN resolution or a document unless it is a UN Security Council resolution

He went on, If you remember Marrakech Accord that was a COP 7 decision, and was a decision for capacity building and technology transfer, that was eight years ago, and we are still discussing capacity building and technology transfer at COP 15.

But he said he is not too much disappointed with the outcome of COP 15, because it gave a lot of things to work with and a lot of things to ponder upon.

The Copenhagen Accord has many things, but it left out the mitigation aspect, he noted.

But it still gives some parameters, although does not give the peaking time, it does not give a target. What should be the target as a whole by all the countries and what should be the target to be achieved by the Annex 1 countries Those are the things that are not there. So are those things going to be achieved by COP 16 This is the tough part of the negotiations, he said.

The hard nut issue will still be mitigation at COP 16, he added saying, Because if you see the points of these big four countries. I don’t see how much they would like to agree to an emission cut. They are still talking about increasing their GDP growth, but not emission cut in direct terms.

There is a limit to adaptation, after a certain point we just cannot adapt, he said.

Bangladesh needs to do some housekeeping, he said adding that housekeeping means assessing where the country stands, what is its situation, and what can be done.

The environment ministry is not the only responsible ministry for dealing with the climate change issue, the ministry of power and energy also has something to do on the issue, he said.

The talk about technology transfer needs to move from general to specific, he suggested adding, We need to say what is needed for Bangladesh for technology transfer. But having participated in the debate on technology transfer at COP 15 this is known that technology transfer cannot flow by itself. It has to flow through some means. What are those means Those are investment flows.

Both private and public sectors can create that investment flow for technology transfer, he said.

We have to do some work on technology needs assessment. What are our needs Bangladesh hasn’t done anything yet. There are many other countries who have done their needs assessment, said Dr Rezaul.

He said the field of renewable energy is a new field with a lot of potential, adding, We have to take our right place in that renewable energy area. Why don’t we find out how much potential we have in wind energy in the country

He went on to say, for that the government needs to carry out wind mapping. Energy efficiency, energy conservation, clean energy, this are the areas the government has to work on for technology transfer, he added. 

7.1.7 Dr Ahsan Uddin Ahmed

Dr Ahsan Uddin Ahmed, executive director of the Centre for Global Change (CGC), said Bangladesh should have detailed micro and macro planning for climate smart development.

He also urged the government to ensure MRV (measurable, reportable and verifiable) implementation of different local level projects.

He said the Copenhagen Accord is not legally binding, and there will be more negotiations on the document in the coming months before COP 16.

Being one of the most vulnerable countries, Bangladesh probably can take the lead role in those negotiations, he suggested.

He also emphasised on strengthening ‘local capacity’, adding, We must embrace climate smart development.

Dr Ahsan pointed out that the government already has a climate change strategy and action plan prepared, and it also incorporated the climate change issue in its sixth five-year development plan.

Now the government should plan the details, he said. He also pointed out that the government has yet to let the world know what it actually has done on the issue.

The government already allocated money for social safety net for climate change victims, but it did not bring that out at Cop 15, he pointed out again.

In the last decade Bangladesh’s main source for power generation was gas, he said, But we have not brought that up as well.

Along with increasing the capacity within and outside the government, he emphasised on opening courses on climate change in public universities. 

7.1.8 Syeda Rizwana Hasan

Syeda Rizwana Hasan, executive director of Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers’ Association (Bela), said, Bangladesh has to take a lead role in climate negations for the protection of its territorial integrity.

There is no alternative to mitigation measures by major carbon emitters for protecting territorial integrity of vulnerable countries, she asserted.

At the same time, Bangladesh must learn to say no to any unacceptable provision in the climate accord, she said adding, the country faces the risk of losing 17 percent of its landmass and displacement of 20 million people as a consequence of the climate change impacts including rise of the sea level.

The climate change is going to change the map of our country. So it is scary for us. It is a question of survival for us, Rizwana warned the roundtable.

At the national level, the government must monitor by who, when, and how the adaptive and mitigating actions are being carried out, she said.

The government’s adaptation and mitigation measures must be right based, and the vulnerable communities must be made aware that it is there right to be safe, she added.

The government should also declare the high risk areas ‘critically vulnerable’ to make the communities aware of the impending danger, she suggested.

She criticised the Copenhagen Accord saying, there is not a single word in the document about the displaced people. 

7.1.9 Ziaul Haque Mukta

Ziaul Haque Mukta, coordinator of the Centre for Sustainable Rural Livelihood, strongly opposed signing on to the Copenhagen Accord, saying the accord has no multilateral basis, and there is no mention of mitigation target for developed countries.

It will be suicidal for Bangladesh to accept it by January 31, he said.

He said there had been a lot of weaknesses in the Bangladesh government’s strategic and action plan for climate change, and the government reviewed it.

He was critical of Bangladesh’s assessment of the funding it needs to tackle the impacts, and said the assessment was not done on the basis of a comprehensive groundwork.

He also suggested that the government should prepare a strategy for coming negotiations.

Members of the Bangladesh delegation are mostly interested in going to the plenary session, as there is scope for delivering speeches there. But our representation at the meetings of contact groups and informal groups is also very vital, he said adding that the texts of the negotiations are prepared in the meetings of those groups.

He said the government should inform non-government organisations about its formal position regarding the climate change issue in the post Copenhagen situation, so the NGOs also can raise their voices, rendering strength to the government’s position during international negotiations.

Bangladesh needs to arrive at a position considering the realities of the geopolitical factors, he said, adding that it should continue its negotiations in the international arena being in G-77, although China and India in the grouping pay more attention to their own interests, and not to the interests of the vulnerable countries like Bangladesh.

Technical analysis for the negotiations and our demands must be stronger, he said.

7.1.10 Dr Sharmind Neelormi

Dr Sharmind Neelormi of Jahangirnagar University said for the first time in the UNFCCC process NGOs which work on women’s issues are being invited and given official status of observers.

Thirty three percent of the registered participants at Cop 15 were female, she pointed out adding, but there was no mention of the gender issue in the accord.

One thing I observed at Cop 15 is that population control is coming up as a major issue in relation to the climate change. I didn’t observe it in earlier COPs. I could sense that there is a huge pressure from the North to water down the causes of climate change by giving emphasis on population control, she noted.

I am clearly stating that since Bangladesh is a densely populated country, a majority of our population is getting affected by the climate change. But our population is not causing the climate change, she asserted.

So if they impose population control on us, we should be very careful, because it will affect the lives of our women’s reproductive health, women are the stakeholders in population control, she said.

So at the negotiations we should be very careful on that. And there are lots of disputes especially among the indigenous communities on REDD Plus and market based solution.

Expressing concerns about REDD Plus, she said, We have lots of disputes about REDD Plus in the hill tracts and in the southern belt of the country where forests are situated. Whether or not we are accepting REDD Plus, what we think about the market based solution, which fund we will accept, we should form policies on those very carefully.

The Ministry for Women’s and Children’s Affairs must get better allocations in this area. There should be a monitoring cell to track how women are being benefited by the adaptation and mitigation projects, she said.

Mahfuz Anam, the editor and publisher of The Daily Star, who moderated the session, invited suggestions from the panel on what kind of a role the media might play to help the government battle climate change.

The panel suggested that the media should build up its capacity to discuss the issue, and it could tell the tales of the affected people as well.

7.2 Special Supplement “Opinion about Climate Change fund Prof. Dr. Ainun Nisht”

There is no doubt that the global climate is going through rapid changes. Climate change and climate variability – both are happening and at a pace in which biodiversity and ecosystem cannot survive, a fact reasserted by the fourth and last IPCC assessment report. The changes are so drastic that they forced their way up on the top global agenda. Let me give some examples.

There is heavy flood in Pakistan and heavy rainfall in China. There has been one-after-another big cyclonic event in the USA and Caribbean countries. Temperature in Moscow was close to 40 degree Celsius this year, higher than that of Dhaka. The central Asian countries saw forest fire taking place due to extreme dryness and heat-waves. Again, wheat production in Central Asia was so low that wheat prices soared high in global markets. Foodgrain production is also suffering.

We know for a fact that if temperature rises by 2 degree Celsius, production of rice and wheat goes down, but if it goes above 4 degrees, production may shrink to half. In Bangladesh, we are faced with all sorts of climate changes and irregular climate behaviour. We had a severe flood in Sylhet area this year at the end of March and early April. And right now, many of the rivers in Bangladesh are still flowing above danger level, unthinkable for this time of the year. The worst pre-conjectures about possible climate change impacts on lives and livelihood are coming true.

In the coastal areas all over the world, due to salinity increase resulting from sea level rise, agriculture productivity is going down. So climate change has become the central point of all discussion – whether it is related to development process or biodiversity conservation or coastal zone management or food security.

After Copenhagen Summit last year, the world awaits yet another session of the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP 16) to be held next month in Mexico. Judging from where climate negotiations stand today, how do you assess the overall situation?

When the climate change convention namely UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) was signed at the Earth Summit back in 1992, the countries were not sure about everything; they just felt the urgency to address the issues related to climate change. They agreed to control the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) so that everything is under control.

Initially, the world paid more attention to climate change mitigation strategy which resulted in Kyoto Protocol to be finalized in 1997. Adaptation was more or less on the side-line. From 1992 to 1997, it took five years of negotiation for signing of the Protocol. And yet it took another eight years for ratification in 2005. So Kyoto Protocol actually came into force after thirteen years of deliberations.

Now we are having big debates about what would happen after the Protocol – the commitment of the developed countries and acknowledgement of their responsibility – expires in 2012. The post-Kyoto Protocol situation hangs in the balance as of today.

Bangladesh and other environmentally vulnerable countries have been pushing for international funds to tackle climate changes. How do you look at it?

Yes, Bangladesh is pushing on the global fund and funding mechanism. When Copenhagen Accord was drafted last year, our honourable prime minister was involved in the negotiation process. And she played a major role in putting the ‘preferential treatment’ of LDC countries in the document. She was supported by countries like the Maldives and others. There are two aspects to consider: fund on climate adaptation – getting adjusted to the adverse impacts of climate change – and fund on climate mitigation – cutting down the cause of climate changes, greenhouse gases.

We generally demand that the fund generated through the market mechanism on the mitigation and the fund required for normal adaptation programme should be looked into separately. The whole world has accepted that. In Copenhagen Accord, the developed countries have agreed to generate 10 billion dollars over three years each. And the normal development funds would not be accounted in these 10 billion dollars. The figure will rise to 100 billion years by 2020. Half the money is to go for adaptation, and half for mitigation.
Though our primary focus is on adaptation fund, we need money for mitigation also which is to go to big greenhouse gas-emitting countries like India, China, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, etc. But if we can play our cards correctly, if we can go for renewable energy, wind power, solar power and all that, we can possibly get some money for mitigation purpose also. For adaptation, however, we have to move really fast, since we are facing at short intervals conditions like either heavy rainfall or no rainfall at all (drought like condition), having floods, cyclonic weather, sea level rise. We may need between 2 to 5 billion dollars over next five years on adaptation alone. We cannot really afford any delay. Moreover, the repair cost of Aila-Sidr affected areas would be around 2 billion dollars, so we have that too in focus.

7.2.1 When do you think is the fund due?

Actually there are debates about how the fund would be disbursed. Developing countries demand a direct access, sustainable amount of fund, direct disbursement, and need-based country-driven approach. On the other hand, developed countries are pushing for what they call ‘existing institutional structure’, including LDC expert groups, EGTT (Expert Group on Technology Transfer), World Bank, etc., apparently in attempts to keep control.

The next challenge is to decide on the amount – deciding whether a country having, for example, a population of two hundred thousand and a country having a population of 160 million should get the same amount.

There is yet another debate about how the funding would be administered. The developing countries are demanding a separate committee to set up which will be responsible for giving decision on disbursement. The donors prefer World Bank to do it. But we know what happens when money is distributed by World Bank: all kinds of bureaucracy, consultancy and all that. This is why I think Bangladesh should not sit back and just wait for international fund to flow in. We should move forward with whatever internal resources we have. The donors have a tendency to see if we are trying on our own, then they come forward. Having said that, I have to admit the fund distribution mechanism at the international level has still a long way to go.

National initiatives on some of the adaptive measures should immediately start, independent of the international fund. In the coastal belt of Bangladesh, salinity has gone up, and the rice-bidders are claiming they have developed saline-tolerant rice. So should we wait for World Bank to come with money so that the saline-tolerant rice seeds are available to the farmers? My point is we can utilise international fund in big ways, repair the damaged coastal polders, reconstruct pump stations of Dhaka city, and so on.

The Copenhagen Accord met with both positive and negative appreciation. China and G-77 countries accused it of attaining economic security of a few. What are the points of disagreement about the Accord?

It is true that some of the opponents of the US-drafted Accord feel the process was not transparent and ‘clear’. There are a vocal opposition groups led by the oil and gas industrial countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Emirates, Qatar, and others. They fear that with reduction in the consumption of traditional gas, oil, patrol and diesels, their production and income would go down. They have their own interest.

In the climate change negotiations, there are party groupings based on common region or interest. There are major groups and sub groups working to form common negotiating positions. The four major groups are: G-77 and China, European Union, Umbrella Group which is made up of the likes of USA, Japan, Australia, Canada, etc. And finally there is Environmental Integrity Group (EIG) comprising Switzerland, South Korea, Mexico, etc.

The G-77 group, which unites 132 mainly developing countries, are organised under various sub groups. One sub group is Africa. They are very powerful, and speak in one voice. And the weakest voice is possibly that of Asia. Then there are regional groups. Geographical groups. Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). OPEG group. Group of the least developed countries (LDC). Rainforest Alliance. There is another powerful bloc of four countries – BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China). So some eight to ten sub-groups are active there pulling strings to get decisions their way.

So, when G-77 and China sit down to decide their position on a particular issue all these sub-groups start speaking in their own voices. It’s already known that the G-77 countries, as a bloc, resisted the decisions taken in the Copenhagen Accord. Bangladesh is a member of the G-77 and China. It follows the decisions taken by the bloc. But independently, along with another 126 countries, we have said the Copenhagen Accord contains a lot of good things and we don’t want to miss the benefit of it. One of which is that the whole world agreed to keep the temperature below 2 degree Celsius for the first time. But Bangladesh is not a blind supporter of the Copenhagen Accord.

7.2.2 On its part, how does SAARC relate to the whole climate negotiation process?
There could have been a SAARC sub-group, but countries of SAARC do not have a common, corresponding unity on climate change issues on the negotiation table. Incidentally though, India and Pakistan happen to be good friends in climate issues.

I think the failure of SAARC turning into a regional environmental alliance has something to do with the capacities and economic status of the eight member countries in SAARC. Five of them are in the group of LDC and three are in the non-LDC: India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. With respect to the negotiation skill of the rest, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal have quite high capacity. Maldives also have a very high capacity. They are a small country, but their delegation takes regular part in negotiations. On the other hand, Bhutan and Nepal are not very active. Afghanistan is not active at all.

So, with varying interests, SAARC countries failed to unite under one umbrella. Bangladesh mostly gives leadership to the least developed countries. The LDC chair is elected on a two-year rotation which is currently preserved by Lesotho. But most of the time and in most of the sub-groups Bangladesh is requested by Lesotho to be their spokesperson.

Experts stress the need for capacity building to negotiate climate issues. How aptly do you think Bangladesh can play its cards at the international level?

Broadly speaking, negotiation capacity at any international discussion table, be that political forum, economic forum, or climate for that matter, depends on a number of factors. Factor number one: your technical knowledge on the subjects. Number two: your capacity to articulate your points at the global level, which means capacity over English and diplomatic terms and languages. Number three: how familiar you are with the common faces because decisions are not taken in the meeting room. These are done in the corridors, based on contacts.

Bangladesh is maintaining a group-approach over the last four years in climate change negotiations. We are working as a team which has become familiar in the international lobby, and people in the international arena know that Bangladeshi negotiators are working there on climate change issues and serving on many committees, sub-committees and sub-groups. Bangladesh’s position and negotiation capacity is quite well known and well-respected.

7.2.3 There was a suggestion recently about appointing climate ambassadors for Bangladesh. What is the point of it?

The idea of a climate ambassador is to represent the climate issues of Bangladesh in the international arena. A senior academic with full knowledge and control over climate issues could be nominated. Many countries have already climate ambassadors, such as Canada, USA, Brazil, etc. The point is, you have a highly vocal person who can spread the cause internationally, sit down and talk with the counterparts and so on. Appointment of a climate ambassador is more of a showpiece, more to establish the fact that we are giving supreme importance on climate change. It is more like Unesco which appoints celebrated personalities and famous cricketers as its goodwill ambassadors. But I think government should have a well-coordinated climate change unit to keep track of all the information and papers and analyse issues.

7.2.4 How do you see Bangladesh’s current position on climate change?

Bangladesh has developed a climate change strategy in 2008 which has been updated later – ‘Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan 2009’. This is a major document even compared to global level. We are the first country to produce this document on our own initiatives based on the NAPA (National Action Program for Adaptation) document produced in 2005. The 47 Asian emerging countries (AEC) are required to produce their NAPA documents. And all the developing countries will be required to produce the NAMA (Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Program) documents. We have started to produce the NAMA document as well.

But we are trying to internalize climate change into all development programs. Bangladesh has already declared war on climate change, has produced their own guidelines and started putting their own money. In general, Bangladesh is pushing for immediate action on adaptation; it has started work with its own resources. As of today, Bangladesh has allocated Tk 1400 crore of its own money into a separate trust fund, the donors have put another 800 crore. But immediate mobilization of the global resources is essential.

7.2.5 It has been claimed that Bangladesh is the most vulnerable country on earth. How do you evaluate the vulnerability?

A group of countries led by mainly Pakistan are challenging this vulnerability assessment about Bangladesh. They argue that a country that faces natural disasters at regular interval is ready and prepared for that unlike a country which did not face disaster, say, in last one hundred years, and now suddenly faces one. They claim that the latter is less prepared and therefore suffer more. So who is more vulnerable?

Of course we are extremely vulnerable, a fact reconfirmed by a European Union study. But I don’t say that we are the topmost vulnerable in the superlative sense of term, but we are in the most vulnerable country group. World Bank has carried out a study where they have shown vulnerability in terms of flood, cyclone, sea level rise, draught, landslide, riverbank erosion – and Bangladesh appears on six out of ten parameters. I would not like to fight on that either.

In the Copenhagen Accord, also the Bali Action Plan, it was said that the support would go to the vulnerable countries like least developed countries (LDC), small island developing countries (SIDS), countries in Africa who are suffering from flood and draught. The operating point here is ‘preferential treatment’ to be given to the vulnerable countries. Countries like India are also suffering equally. But they do not fall under LDCs, small island states or Africa. But they don’t want to be deprived of that either. Take the Maldives, there are three hundred thousand people living there. If the island nation has to give in to the surrounding ocean due to adverse climate change impacts and vanishes in hundred years, obviously they are extremely vulnerable.

Our position is that there should be some kind of vulnerability index based on what funds should go. But let me get to the core of the matter. Climate change is on top of the global agenda, whether in G-7 meeting, G-8 meeting, G-20 meeting, General Assembly meeting of the UN, or any economic group meeting, because they know that climate change would be a burden on them all. The difference is some countries have the capacity to cope, some do not.

There was a claim by a Bangladeshi geo-morphologist that the threat of sea level rise and riverbank erosion is counter-balanceable by sediment transport and naturally-occurred landmass build-up. What do you think about it?

The claim was misreported by a foreign newspaper. And he denied to have claimed so when I asked him. He claimed that land building process would start. But you see, land building process is a very slow process. If you come to Bangladesh after 2 lakh years, for example, you will see a lot of land has been built up. But after ten years, nothing will have happened. Moreover, the amount of erosion is not equal to the amount of deposition. People only calculate the amount of charlands that have emerged, but do not calculate the amount of charlands and riverbanks that have eroded. For example, if one hundred square kilometre char has been built up somewhere, some 800 square kilometre char may have been eroded in the meantime somewhere else.

Chapter Eight

Concluding Remarks

Action Aid Makes Recommendations to UN Climate Adaptation Fund

8.1 Key Findings

Discussions about the prioritization of adaptation finance under the UNFCCC are characterized by ambiguity, reflecting the lack of agreement among Parties on what it means to be ‘particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.’

Climate negotiators would be misguided to think scientists could develop a definitive, objective and unchallengeable method to rank countries according to their vulnerability to climate change. Scientists cannot resolve political ambiguity.

To measure and rank the vulnerability of countries requires normative decisions. To make such decisions is the domain of politics and should therefore be the responsibility of negotiators, not of scientists.

It is unlikely that Parties could reach agreement on any one of the vulnerability indices put forward. Any resulting ranking is likely to be contested by countries that, according to the ranking, are not particularly vulnerable and therefore not prioritized for adaptation funding.

8.2 Recommendation

Negotiators need to be aware of the political decisions involved in constructing vulnerability indices. They also need to understand how these decisions would influence the ranking of countries and thereby the allocation of adaptation finance.

Before considering any vulnerability index, negotiators must agree on which variables to consider, what weights – if any – to attach to them, and where to set the threshold beyond which countries are considered ‘particularly vulnerable.’

Negotiators should avoid creating a situation where resource allocation decisions are informed by a ranking of countries derived from a non-transparent assessment based on criteria not previously agreed by Parties.

While the world’s poor have had almost nothing to do with creating the problem change, they are facing the greatest challenges in coping with its impacts. For approximately one billion of the poorest people in the world, climate change is seen not an issue of mitigation (or the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions), but as an issue of adaptation.

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change estimates that approximately US$67 billion a year is needed for developing countries to adapt to climate change. Only a small fraction of those funds have been raised. Moreover, the existing mechanisms for adaptation funding do not meet ActionAid’s criteria of democratic governance, sustainable and compensatory funding, and access to the most vulnerable communities. (For more information on these criteria, please see ActionAid’s “Compensating for Climate Change: Principles and Lessons for Equitable Adaptation Funding.”)

However, there is still hope. One of the key agreements reached at the thirteenth Conference of the Parties (COP 13) in Bali, December 2007, was the decision to create a new fund for adaptation. The process of making the fund operational creates new opportunities to construct an effective and equitable adaptation fund that will truly benefit the most vulnerable communities.

The Adaptation Fund (AF) is fundamentally different from the other existing funds for adaptation. It relies primarily on a two percent levy on Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects. Negotiated as part of the Kyoto Protocol, these projects are intended to channel carbon-cutting energy investments financed by rich-country companies to developing countries, in exchange for carbon credits. Additional funds will come from other Communications Emma Lindberg unspecified sources.

The AF is expected to become the largest and most reliably financed of the existing funds. The World Bank estimates that the amount of money available could reach as much as $500 million by 2012. It is important to note that if the two percent levy on CDM projects were expanded to other flexible mechanisms the amount of money available under the Adaptation Fund could amount to tens of billions of dollars a year. Such mechanisms could include new levies on air and maritime travel, voluntary contributions and revenues generated by national cap-and-trade systems. Action Aid is working with civil society organizations from all over the world to push for the expansion of these and other mechanisms to ensure that the Adaptation Fund has the resources it needs to function effectively.

The Adaptation Fund Board is meeting from June 16-19 to set Fund’s rules, procedures, guidelines, and priorities. Action Aid has observer status to the Adaptation Fund Board meetings and is actively engaging with board members to insist that they adopt the rules and create the structures necessary for it to become a truly equitable and effective fund.

  • Acknowledging the work of the Global Environment Facility to operationalize the Special Climate Change Fund,
  • Noting the concerns expressed by most Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention with regard to the operational criteria and policies to be followed in financing activities under the Special Climate Change Fund during an initial five-year period, which were endorsed by the Global Environment Facility Council in November 2004,
  • Noting also the separation between the administration and activities of the Global Environment Facility and the Special Climate Change Fund,
  • Noting further that activities supported through the Special Climate Change Fund shall take into account national communications or national adaptation programmes of action, where available, and other relevant information provided by the applicant Party,
  • Reiterating that the Special Climate Change Fund should serve as a catalyst to leverage additional resources from bilateral and other multilateral sources,
  • Reiterating also that activities to be funded should be country-driven, cost-effective and integrated into national sustainable development and poverty-reduction strategies,
  • Reiterating further that the provision of support for the implementation of eligible activities under the Special Climate Change Fund shall be consistent with the guidance provided by the Conference of the Parties,

Energy efficiency, energy savings, renewable energy and less-greenhouse-gas-emitting advanced fossil-fuel technologies;

Innovation including through research and development relating to energy efficiency and savings in the transport and industry sectors;

Climate-friendly agricultural technologies and practices, including traditional agricultural methods;

Afforestation, reforestation and use of marginal land;

Solid and liquid waste management for the recovery of methane;

8.3 Conclusion:

Bangladesh continues to stress that any delay in reduction of emission will only increase the need and cost of adaptation and ultimately will turn adaptation work futile. Hence, our emphasis on adaptation and request for urgent decisions on and disbursement of adaptation financing. Stern Review on the Economics of Climate change termed as the most comprehensive review ever carried out found that all countries would be affected with dangers of unabated climate change being equivalent to at least 5% of GDP each year, and that it was the poorest countries that would suffer earliest and the most. Therefore, why not agreeing to spend just 1.5% of the GDP now? For urgently needed adaptation, MVCs like Bangladesh need fast start climate financing. Sadly enough, the commitments made in Copenhagen shows no sign of being fulfilled. No adaptation fund is coming. We are hardly benefiting from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) due to its complicated procedures and extremely slow approval process. We urge upon the industrialised countries including the USA to stimulate their CDM markets to give a boost to Kyoto Protocol. We also call upon the developed countries to encourage and assist market based solutions to the problems caused by climate change. When considering financing for adaptation, vulnerability of the country under consideration and the vulnerability to the kinds of climate change phenomena, its frequency and extent of risk and damage, number of population exposed, seriousness of the country about adaptation should be taken into account. On questions of adaptation and technology we also recognize the importance of bottom up strategy and speeding of green innovation, investment, and application of best available technology in the private sector. Complimentary strategy would be public private cooperation that could unleash investors, consumers, and businessmen to drive forward transition to low carbon economic growth by removing impediments in a number of areas.

On climate financing in general, Bangladesh feels that financing major part of it should come as contribution from the governments; financing has to be in the form of grants and in addition to ODA; financing has to be binding, well designated, easily accessible, stable and predictable; financing has to be made available through the UNFCCC for climate change along with some kind of simple mechanism and management structure put in place with windows for adaptation, mitigation, insurance, and so on; about half of financing should be for adaptation and that must go primarily to the MVCs; the scale of finance  agreed must be reviewed and revised as more information regarding adaptation needs and extent of impacts become known; for financing, contribution rate in percentage term may be fixed as has been done in case of ODA (0.7% of GDP). Bangladesh deeply appreciates the EU for their sincere support and readiness to come forward at great length in meeting the global challenge.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC

The Convention entered into force on 21 March, 1994

 To define DAI “one must take into account issues that are not only scientific, but (…) economic, political, and even ethical in nature.” See Michael E Mann, “Defining dangerous anthropogenic interference,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Available from:

UNVCCC, “Report of the Conference of the Parties on its fifteenth Session, held in Copenhaben from 7 to 9 December 2009, Addendum. Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at its fifteenth Session, “FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add. 1, 30 March 2010, 5. Available from:

The Kyoto Protocol set 1990 as the benchmark year against which agreed emissions reductions were to be measured. However the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calculated emissions reductions targets 2000 as the benchmark year.

 This mechanism calls for a dynamic form of international cooperation, where countries should be enabled to make renewed pledges for emission reduction on a continuous basis.