Pccr trip report

1

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands On March 14-17, the Republic of the Marshall Islands was represented at the third Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue by Assistant Secretary Annette N. Note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) and by SNC Support Officer Desmond N. Doulatram from the Office of Environmental Planning & Policy Coordination (OEPPC).

BACKGROUND The PCCR was established in 2008 to support Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) with the implementation and monitoring of the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change and its Action Plan (PIFACC). Previous Roundtables have been held in the Republic of the Marshall Islands in 2009 and Samoa in 2008. The Roundtable also plays an important role in sharing experience on climate change and coordinating regional approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation. The theme for the aforementioned PCCR was “Mobilizing Climate Change Resources for the Pacific.” The overall roundtable was broken down into four meeting days.

DAY 1: MONDAY 14 OF MARCH 2011

The first working day was further broken down into three sessions with the first session dedicated to the Opening Ceremony, the second session to the PCCR Working Arrangements and Updates, and the third session to Mobilizing Climate Change Resources for the Pacific. For this particular day, participants sat through presentation after presentation.

Session 1: Opening Ceremony

The first session was dedicated to a Welcoming Ceremony by the people of Niue. The day started out with an opening prayer by Reverend Arthru Phigia – President of Ekalesia Kersiania. This prayer was followed by a Hymn by the Niue choir setting the scene for the opening statement by the SPREP Director, Mr. David Sheppard who then gave the stage to Hon. Toke Talagi, the premier of Niue/Minister of Environment to give the opening address. After the opening address, the Niue Primary School gave a cultural performance. The opening ceremony ended with a group photograph of all PCCR participants.

Session 2: PCCR Working Arrangements and Updates The second session began with an overview of the Agenda. Once agenda was approved and adopted, participants had an open-ended drafted Committee selection. Once drafting committee members were selected the first of many endless presentations began. First presentation was given by Dr. Netatua Pelesikoti of SPREP. Her presentation report was on the PCCR progress made since 2009 and PCCR proposed methods of work. The following key points were highlighted in her presentation: 1. PIFACC Mid Term Review: This was discussed further on Session 4: Tuesday 15th of PCCR 2. PCCR Structure Strengthened 3. Gaps & Issues for further Actions: Tourism, Health, Food Security, Climate Change Technology, Data/Baseline Requirements, Roster of Experts, Streaming Reporting, Ecosystem Approaches 4. Facilitation of Adaptation at National Level: Technical Backstopping, GEF Funding for Adaptation

2

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands 5. Pacific Tailored Approaches: Community Based Approaches/Policy & Planning at National Level, SIDS Docks, Mainstreaming, Education and Communication, Regional Funding Mechanisms, Human Rights and Relocation Luncheon Event A luncheon event was hosted by SPREP immediately after session 2 of the PCCR. The luncheon event was hosted by SPREP and UNDP. SPREP presented on Meteorology in the Pacific and on Regional Meteorological Services and UNDP presented on the UNREDD and REDD+ in Asia/Pacific.

Session 3: Mobilizing Climate Change Resources for the Pacific As mentioned earlier, the remainder of the day was again dedicated to presentations by Country reps, regional organizations, and donors. The first three presentations of session three were on the UNFCCC in Cancun, the third was on Global Finance Outlook, the fourth was on Regional Climate Change Finance Mobilization and Coordination, the fifth was on EU Climate Change Initiatives, the sixth was on the Cancun Green Fund, and the final one was on the ADB/WB Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) Region-Wide component.

1. UNFCCC In Cancun a. Main Outcomes from Cancun: Implications and Actions i. Key issues in Cancun 1. Advancing the commitments in the Kyoto Protocol – for developed countries 2. Developing long term cooperative action for developing countries mitigation and securing resources for adaptation, capacity building, technology and cooperation ii. Key outcomes from Cancun 1. Shared Vision – adaptation firmly on same footing as mitigation 2. Recognition that deep emission cuts are needed, but without agreement on what those should be 3. Recognition that the targets must be linked to the science 4. First ever reference to climate change and human rights 5. Cancun Adaptation Framework established, resources allocated in FCCC Secretariat 6. Adaptation will include consideration of displacement and forced migration iii. Key outcomes, Adaptation 1. Support for enhancing the NAPA process for LDCs 2. NAPA process extended to non-LDCs, but with no financial or technical support guaranteed as for the LDCs 3. Adaptation Committee established, will require Pacific Island Countries input

3

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands

iv.

v.

vi.

vii.

viii.

4. Loss and damage/insurance recognized but will be considered in expert meetings Key outcomes, Mitigation 1. Developed countries efforts noted, more ambition called for 2. Strengthens the oversight of domestic action, enhancing the reporting guidance 3. Developing countries agree to take nationally appropriate mitigation action 4. Resources to be made available, reporting, registry, SIDS/LDC opt-out possible Key outcomes, REDD 1. Process agreed to by which interested Parties can register intent, apply for assistance to set baselines and inventory 2. Decisions on financing and market and non-market mechanisms at COP17 3. Decisions on evaluating cost effectiveness and reporting minimums at COP17 Key Implications for the Pacific 1. Work on adaptation framework requires firming up on the key principles – phased approach, support at all stages of adaptation, institutional support and NAPA like process for non-LDCs 2. Loss and damage mechanism will be considered by expert meetings – need to have engagement from regional experts 3. Opting out of NAMAs for the region – implications on eligibility for mitigation finance Next Steps 1. PCCR should provide avenues for introducing key concerns from the region through to negotiators from PICs 2. Examples could be priorities for adaptation programmatic approach, details of how this could be systemized to fit the region 3. Other examples could be specific requests to different work streams – education and awareness, small scale mitigation programmes, etc.

4. Introduce Pacific specific issues of concern to Pacific Island Countries representative on boards and committees Reflections on Pacific in Cancun 1. Excellent participation by Pacific Island Countries delegates, large turnout and active – key PICs were elected or confirmed in committees/boards 2. Assisted by Pacific pre-meeting and negotiations training – timing of such events in 2011 3. High turnout at side event despite the transport difficulties – plans for 2011

4

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands 4. Still need to further enhance the profile of Pacific issues in the FCCC process ix. Role of the PCCR 1. Feed in to the negotiations key issues from the region through the working groups and the steering committee 2. Provide regional overview of how FCCC decisions are impacting in the region and provide advice on corrective actions if needed 3. Be a sounding board for new initiatives 4. Advisory role on promoting new issues or fine-tuning positions on other issues x. Conclusion 1. FCCC process is important to PICs but should not be an end-all – national and regional priorities should feed into and give guidance to FCCC – requires planning and coordination 2. SPREP efforts to assist the countries has so far been approved by PICs but further guidance and streamlining of support is needed 3. SPREP will work with PICs and partners to prepare well for Durban and preparatory meetings – session on Wednesday b. Country perspectives on the implications from Cancun i. Kiribati Perspective 1. Positive Impressions a. Restoration of confidence in the Multilateral (UNFCCC) process b. Inclusion of the Bali Action Plan elements c. Establishment of the Cancun Adaptation Framework and sealed fate of the Adaptation Committee d. Establishment of the Green Climate Fund e. “Pledge and Review”: system to review adequacy of 20C possibly to 1.50C f. Key Political Decisions are contained enough to guide future negotiations towards a LBA 2. Negative Impressions a. Limited Progress on the Kyoto Protocol and its uncertain extension into second commitment period b. Inadequacy of mitigation targets and peaking timelines c. Challenge to muster up confidence and conclude negotiations against urgency of addressing the problems d. Transparency over commitments and delivery of Fast-Start Finance e. Prospect on possible weak commitments of decisions in contrast to a desire for a LBA f. No preferential treatment of SIDS as vulnerable group in the Adaptation Framework

5

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands ii. Solomon Islands’ Perspective 1. Key Outcomes a. Shared Vision i. Temperature target < 2C Review of adequacy by 2015 - 1.5C ii. First review to start in 2013 and conclude by 2015 based on best available science iii. Long term goal for reducing emission by 2015 - consideration at COP17 b. Mitigation i. Targets Deferred to 2011 Agreed to work on transparency ii. Agreements to initiate national action plans to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation c. Adaptation i. Adaptation Framework & Committee established as well as a Loss and Damage work program agreed to in the Cancun Agreement ii. Mechanism for Loss and Damage, AOSIS propose an insurance based mechanism to address permanent loss and damage as a result of climate change. iii. Work program on loss and damage as a result of climate impacts e.g. from hurricanes and sea level rise – decision 2012. d. Finance i. Green Climate Fund - to manage funding for climate change targeted at US$100B per year by 2020. Small island states will have 2 members on the Board of that institution – design 2011. ii. Adaptation Committee - that would provide guidance and support to developing countries in developing national programs to adapt to climate change – design 2011 iii. Adaptation Fund operationalised - countries can apply directly to the Adaptation Fund for grant financing for projects – have to set up NIEs – Regional workshops. iv. US$30B available as Fast Start funds for 2010 to 2012 – increased transparency e. Deforestation i. Agreed to slow, halt and reverse destruction of trees and agree the rules for delivering it and for monitoring progress.

6

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands f.

REDD+ i. The Agreement reaffirms that adequate, predictable support and resources is given to slow, halt and reverse forest cover and carbon loss. g. Technology Development i. Institutional Framework agreed ii. Technology Mechanism â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Centre and Network h. Capacity Building: Institutional Framework Deferred i. Legal Form: Deferred j. Future of the Kyoto: Deferred 2. Status of Negotiations a. The Agreement is weak and ineffective but provides a life line especially those on life rafts a chance to try and rescue b. Emissions cuts on the table under the Agreement will see temperature rise to 5 degrees Celsius, which would be catastrophic for SIDS and LDCs c. From here on leadership from Annex 1 (industrialized countries) is needed to take things forward. In Cancun there was a lack of that as no one wanted to make a second commitment period except to do so at a voluntary basis. d. Good will and trust emerged from Cancun is fragile and will be tested and tried if pledges made does not deliver transparently in Durban e. The Umbrella Group have pursued an agenda where emission reduction is decided by politicians rather than science f. Gains made in Cancun could be seen from a process perspective, it sets up structure and system to build on as the negotiations moves to Durban. g. Japan is taking a more aggressive role internationally and began the negotiations by announcing that it refuses to take on a second commitment period.

3. Unresolved Issues a. Emission reductions b. Financial commitments c. Response measures, polluter pays principle and the concept of historical responsibilities. AOSIS under adaptation is also seeking a mechanism to address loss and damage costs due to climate change. d. On Technology, links to finance and intellectual property rights were not bridged during the negotiations.

7

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands e. Mitigation, no agreement on the establishment of National Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMAs) registry. Developing countries wanted it to be tied to finance; developed countries on the other hand wanted it to be independent. f. On REDD plus, outstanding issues relating to finance and issues relating to monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) remain outstanding. g. Finance: There was not sufficient time to look at details of the climate change funds; there were divergent views on financial boards. Concerns were registered on the layer of bureaucracy that could prove burdensome to making operationalising the mechanism. h. Capacity Building: Developing states wanted provisions of capacity building as legally binding and linked to finance 4. Implications of Cancun Outcomes a. Emission Reduction Targets i. AOSIS and LDCs have been calling for limiting temperature increase for less than 1.5 deg.C ii. For the survival of our ecosystems, ocean resources and the environment we deep on iii. Delay and failure of Annex I countries to discuss emission reduction targets b. Funding i. operationalisation of the Green Fund given that the WB is the trustee , an issue that is contested by many developing countries including the civil society given the institutions undemocratic system (weighted votes) and poor green record. ii. Also sources of funding to the fund is vague iii. Accessibility and requirements c. REDD+ i. positive outcome ii. Provides an avenue to pursue National REDD+ programs and activities d. Fast Track Financing i. For countries of the Pacific must be adequate, predictable, new, additional and grant based. ii. Financial pledges made should be formally brought into the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change process where we have a say and an allocation on how it is used.

8

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands iii. There must also be balanced allocation of these resources between adaptation and mitigation e. Legal Form of a future agreement – Developing countries have been calling that any future climate change instrument must be legally binding f. Future of the Kyoto Protocol – the only binding agreement in place that binds Annex I parties to reduce quantifiable amounts of GHGs. SIDS and LDCs are calling for the continuation of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 2. Global Finance Outlook a. PIFS: The importance of exploring options for improved access to and management of climate change resources i. LEADERS, FEMM DIRECTION TO ADDRESS THIS SITUATION 1. Forum Leaders in 2010 2. Reiterated concern over climate change and emphasized the need for improved access to and utilization of increasing amounts of resources to address climate change priorities in the region.

3. Forum Leaders tasked Forum Economic and Environment Ministers and Executives of CROP Agencies to advise on options to improve access to, and management of, climate change resources.

4. Secretariat to work with relevant organizations to develop mechanisms to assist countries access the different international financing for climate change.

5. Links with Cairns Compact will be critical to the effectiveness of resource delivery and utilization.

6. On the basis of this guidance, FEMM in October 2010 7. Requested PIFS in collaboration with SPREP and all other relevant stakeholders to develop an “Options Paper” that would advise on options to improve access to and management of climate change resources, and provide to FEMM, Environment Ministers and Forum Leaders in 2011.

8. This Options Paper is being developed in full consultation with countries (environment and economic officials), development partners (see paper).

9. CROP Executives – Meet twice and providing core oversight committee in development of Options Paper – agreed in Feb. ii. Scope of Options Paper 1. Objective: Present options for countries to draw on 2. Resources available and projected – links with ODA, Climate Change funding and National resources 3. Existing challenges 4. Options analysis (focus on National options)

9

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands 5. National options – Modalities e.g. budget support, plus associated challenges with management, utilization, donor receptiveness etc 6. Regional options – e.g. Regional funding mechanism (SPREP report) 7. International options – including Green Fund development iii. OPTIONS PAPER – Consolidate and build on existing knowledge and efforts 1. Feasibility Study on establishing a regional climate change funding mechanism/facility (PCCR/SPREP) 2. Global level – Green Fund, Adaptation, GEF reform 3. Cairns Compact – Improved donor coordination, aid effectiveness, strengthening national systems, improved measurability of progress.

4. CROP Executive Sub-Committee on Climate Change 5. Pacific Climate Change Round Table – Coordination, information sharing, matching needs with resources 6. Development Partners in Climate Change (DPCC) 7. Australia – Pacific Partnerships and ICCAI 8. EU – Joint Initiative on Climate Change, direct budget support 9. Pilot Program Climate Change Resilience (PPCR) (WB/ADB) 10. National consultations where ever possible 11. Consultation with relevant officials and stakeholders on the back of other meetings e.g.

12. Cancun COP16 13. Aid Effectiveness and Development Coordination Workshop Nadi Feb 2011 14. Input from EU Pacific Climate Change Conference, March 2011 iv. Resources available for Climate Change 1. Est. 27billion in 2010 CC Funding 2. Some Global Multilateral Funding Sources a. Fast Start – 30b by 2012, Pacific ? b. Long term financing -100b per year by 2020 c. Hatoyama Initiative (Japan) 11b public, 4b private d. GEF 5 scenario – Adaptation LDCF/SCCF – 1b (globally), mitigation 28m for Pacific e. CIF – 4.4b mitigation, 1.9b adaptation, Pacific SCF 75m f. Adaptation Fund – 300 – 600m by 2012 3. Estimates of some bilateral funding sources a. Australia – 80m 2011-12 & 2012-13 b. EU – Joint Initiative (30m), EDF (44m), Fast Start 3.2b total c. Japan - 66m PEC Fund d. Germany – 14m e. Italy – 12m f. UAE – 50m 4. ODA and International Climate Change Resourcing Projections

10

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands a. Projected ODA by 2020 = 117billion per annum b. Projected Climate Change funding by 2020 = 100billion per annum c. ODA access and management > Pacific region faces significant challenges with effective donor coordination, aid effectiveness and overall development effectiveness [Cairns Compact]. d. Focus on strengthening national systems for effective access to and management of these resources combined with national resources. e. CC Funding access and management f. Figures show that access to global funding for climate change has been very limited overall (est. 10% in 2010) indicating current challenges in accessing global funding architecture for everyone. (even more pronounced for SIDS) [OECD analysis] g. NB/ Significant PIC national resources and capacity are also required and currently allocated to climate change efforts and will likely increase into the future. [% external ODA and CC funds to national budgets 5. Mitigation and Adaptation Funding & co-benefits for development a. 80% global CC funds have been allocated to Mitigation b. 20% CC funds to Adaptation c. Strong calls for evening out this balance d. Adaptation funding has always been a priority for PICâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s e. Need to consider co-benefits that can come with accessing mitigation also, including shifting towards lower carbon economies.

6. SOME CHALLENGES IN EFFECTIVE ACCESS TO AND MANAGEMENT AND USE OF CLIMATE CHANGE RESOURCES a. Global Funding architecture is complex and was not designed to take into account the size and capacity constraints of SIDS. b. Understanding and influencing the priority focus of these funds and how they operate and can be accessed is very difficult for SIDS. c. Multitude of bilateral donors d. All with different conditions, timelines, processes for access, request for focal points e. Each with varying understanding of PICâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and some with political interests f. Some deal directly with national governments, some with sectors and some directly to communities. g. Multitude of regional and international technical agencies h. CROP coordination

11

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands i. j. k. l.

UN agency coordination CSO’s, private sector, foreign investment Capacity and strength of national systems Reflecting climate change priorities clearly in national plans and sector plans supported by adequate capacity to implement. m. Harnessing external resources on a more predictable basis, and combining it with national budgets 7. SOME PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS a. Strong country led systems required – b. Effective mainstreaming of climate change priorities in national and sectoral plans, and budgets is critical. c. Links between national budgets, strong PFM systems, aid coordination and climate change funding needs to be strengthened. d. Mitigation and adaptation activities should be contextualized in countries own situation and development aspirations to maximize co-benefits. e. Improved collaboration on addressing climate change issues - between central and line ministries. f. Capacity assessment is critical and need to identify where capacity substitution could draw on external partners e.g. CROP agencies g. Donor harmonization and aid effectiveness – h. Bilateral donor engagement should be on the basis of countries own priorities and strategies i. Should be flexible and predictable j. Use of country systems for the delivery of resources where ever possible, to reduce administrative costs and increase predictability of resources e.g. budget support, national trust funds etc. k. Harmonized criteria and standards between donors for direct support e.g. procurement standards, fiduciary standards etc. l. Access to International funding mechanisms m. Require tailor made modalities of access for SIDS to global multilateral funds. (GEF has tried this, CIF pilots, Green Fund hopefully?) n. Adaptation Fund promising with direct access through NIE (but currently only 3 NIE globally) o. Strengthen regional or sub-regional approaches to NIE or IA access (SPREP applying for NIE status)

12

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands p. SPREP Feasibility Study on Regional Funding Mechanism and technical backstopping explores some regional aspects/options in more detail.

8. PCCR and the Options Paper a. Mixture of development partners and national climate change experts. b. Cover implementation as well as resource discussions c. Working groups now established on mitigation, adaptation, knowledge management and Resourcing. d. These will be very useful consultative mechanisms in providing input to finalizing the options paper. e. Need to engage with financing and planning, aid coordination as well. b. SPREP: Climate Change Financing in the Pacific i. Context for climate change finance in the Pacific Region 1. Pacific leaders have consistently identified Climate Change as the greatest challenge facing Pacific Island Countries, underlining the vulnerability of Pacific Islands and the need for urgent action. They have given many clear directions to national governments, regional organizations and the international community 2. Pacific Leaders have established a framework within the Pacific Plan for action on Climate Change – the PIFFAC – the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change 2006 – 2015. This outlines a policy framework and a number of actions for the region.

3. The PIFFAC establishes a Pacific Climate Change Roundtable which has met in 1997 (Apia), in 2009 (Majuro) and here in Niue in March, 2011 ii. 10 Key Climate Change Finance Issues 1. Funding for Climate Change in Pacific Countries must be hugely scaled up. The SPREP study notes that the cumulative spending in the Pacific on Climate Change is in excess of US $200 million. This is a huge shortfall when compared with the money that is needed to respond to Climate Change in the Pacific 2. Funding commitments, such as those in the Copenhagen Accord, must be met and progress towards meeting these commitments must accelerate. Copenhagen Accord agreed that developing countries shall aim to provide US$30 billion for 2010-2 for adaptation and mitigation.

Accord commits developed countries to a “goal” of mobilizing US$100 billion a year by 2020 to support climate change efforts by developing countries. Of the $30 billion promised by developed countries under the Copenhagen Accord Fast Start only 13% (3.9 billion) has been provided so far 3. Climate Funding must be new, predictable and sustainable

13

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands 4. Climate Funding must reflect national priorities and national priority setting mechanisms should be strengthened. The overarching priority is to ensure adequate finance to implement practical and relevant actions at the national level to adapt to climate change. Better priority setting processes should be supported. They should build on existing systems such as the NAPA process and innovative projects such as the UNDP/SPREP Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change Project, which is linked with the Australian Government adaptation programs (ICCAI) 5. Better cooperation and partnerships are required, at all levels. This should include: a. Between donors. Many donors are seeking to increase engagement in the Pacific on Climate Change, including Australia, the US, the EU, the ADB and the World Bank.

However, not all efforts are linked or coordinated as well as they should be. Donor support must recognize and support existing processes and policies, such as the Pacific Plan, PIFFAC and the Climate Round Table, and national planning, including NAPAs. b. At national levels, particularly between Finance Ministries and Environment/Natural Resource Ministries c. Between donors and regional agencies e.g. UNDP, Australia (ICCAI) and SPREP d. Between regional agencies, particularly, PIFS, SPREP, USP and the SPC 6. A balance of financing for adaptation, mitigation and policy support is required. To date funding has been more directed to mitigation. While the Pacific only contributes 0.03% of global greenhouse gas emissions, many important mitigation programs have been undertaken, particularly to reduce dependence of Pacific countries on petroleum products and the development of renewable energy. However there needs to be much greater emphasis on adaptation and building resilience for Pacific Islands. Nature based adaptation is a key part of the response for Pacific countries.

7. Donors and partners need to invest in stronger and more sustainable institutions for climate change, particularly at national levels.

Absorptive capacity is a real issue for many PICs and must be addressed e.g. the Samoa MNRE, as the lead technical agency for climate change has greatly increased their capacity and thus their ability to better attract and manage climate funds 8. A mix of climate funding should be encouraged, including national and regional delivery. The GEF PAS (Pacific Alliance for Sustainability) under GEF 4 has provided a useful model which has delivered more than

14

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands $200m to Pacific countries through 30 projects. However, countries have raised issues associated with GEF, including access of resources and heavy procedural and reporting requirements, as well as the difficulty of involving civil society. GEF 5 reforms are important.

Innovative finance models, such as the Palau Green Fund, should be encouraged.

9. LDCs and most vulnerable countries should remain a priority target for support but we should ensure that support is provided for all vulnerable SIDS, not only the LDCs; we should avoid â&#x20AC;&#x153;climate orphansâ&#x20AC;?

10. Better information on climate change finance is essential. There must be better provision of information to countries on issues such as how to best access resources and also provision of technical backstopping advice and expertise. Systems should recognize and build on existing systems such as the Climate Portal being developed by SPREP with support from the Australian Government. iii. The SPREP Climate Change Finance Report 1. Circulated to PCCR partners for comment in October, 2010. The draft report was also informally circulated to the 14th Finance and Economic Ministers Meeting (FEMM), in October, 2010 for comment 2. Revised draft prepared for consideration by this meeting 3. Report noted ffinancial resources for climate change purposes are available to the Pacific region through a number of arrangements 4. The more commonly financial mechanisms for the Pacific include: (i) The Global Environment Facility; (ii) Multilateral Development Banks like the World Bank Group and the Asian Development Bank (ADB); and iii) bilateral funds available through national development partner arrangements to the Pacific as a region or bilaterally, such as the EU, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

5. In assessing the feasibility of establishing a Pacific Regional Climate Change Fund, the consultants evaluated three institutional options: (1) Stand alone new entity â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a Pacific Climate Change Fund; (2) A fund within an existing organisation; and (3) A fund coordinated at the regional level but operated at the national level.

6. The consultants favored the 3rd option, which suggested housing the Fund within an existing CROP agency, but recommended that further national and regional consultations, including with donors, are necessary before a final choice was made.

7. The report generally endorsed the establishment of a Technical Backstopping Mechanism.

8. Numerous PCCR partners also commented in support of the technical backstopping idea, and agreed that while more thought and evaluation should be given to its development, it may be implemented separately

15

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands while further consultation continues on the options for regional and national funds. iv. Recommendations/Next steps 1. That the option of establishing a Pacific Regional Climate Change Fund continues to be explored through national, regional and international consultations, including consultations with potential donors; and in conjunction with the review of coordination mechanisms for climate change funding currently led by the PIFS. 2. PCCR discussion Results will be fed into the FEMM (Finance and Economics Ministers) and Forum Leaders Meeting 3. SPREP sees this report as one input to the overall discussion on climate change finance in the region c. EU Climate Change Initiatives : EU-Pacific Joint Initiative on CC and Report on the Vanuatu Climate Change Events i. CCA/DRR Funding 1. EUR 3.2 M - Vanuatu 2. EUR 2.8 M - Solomon Islands (Budget Support) 3. EUR 8 M - Pacific region- Training/Research/ (USP) 4. EUR 11.4 M – Regional Pacific SIS – (SPC) 5. EUR 2.5 M- Samoa (Budget Support) ii. Other CCA/DRR funding: 1. EUR 4.3 M - Humanitarian assistance for disaster preparedness in the Pacific region (ECHO) 2. EUR 20 M - Pacific Regional programme on DRR (EDF) 3. EUR 12 M - OCTs – INTEGRE: Integrated management of coastal, terrestrial and marine environment (EDF) iii. CCM Funding (Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency EDF 10) 1. National Envelopes: 28.4 M 2. Regional Envelope: 9 M 3. + REDD project in SIDS: 2 M iv. Update on Fast-Start Financing 1. Committed so far: EUR 50 Million. Out of which EUR 10 M committed for the Pacific. d. Cancun Green Fund i. Developing Countries and Pacific Island States included under umbrella, had been calling for the establishment of an effective financial mechanism under the Conference of the Parties to ensure the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Climate Change Convention, and among other things, to give effect to the principles of country-driven approach and enable direct access to funding.

16

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands ii. The proposal of anew fund was mooted with following concerns by developing countries about the difficulties in obtain adequate, sustained and easy access for adaptation and mitigation activities (e.g. Complexity of GEF structure). iii. Fast-Start Financing: Not yet committed or earmarked iv. GREEN CLIMATE FUND is to be designated as an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the Convention”, and is “to be accountable to, and functions under the guidance of the Conference of the Parties, to support projects, programs, policies and other activities in developing countries, using thematic funding windows”.

1. The Fund will have a Governing Board of 24 members comprising equal representation (i.e. 12 members each from developed and developing country Parties).

2. The Fund will have a Trustee that will be accountable to the Board of the Fund for the performance of its fiduciary responsibilities, with the World Bank to serve as the interim trustee of the Fund subject to a review three years after operationalization of the Fund.

3. The operation of the Fund will be supported by an independent Secretariat.

4. Further, a Standing Committee under the Conference of the Parties will be established to assist Parties “in exercising its functions with respect to the financial mechanism of the convention in terms of improving coherence and coordination in the delivery of climate change financing, rationalization of the financial mechanism, mobilization of financial resources and measurement, reporting and verification of support provided to developing country Parties” 5. In terms of capitalization of the new Fund, Parties agreed that developed counties will “commit, to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD100 billion per year by 2010 to address the needs of developing countries. v. Transitional Committee 1. The Cancun decision provided for the Green Climate Fund to be designed by a Transitional Committee whose first meeting is to take place by March 2011. (Details on Transitional Committee are in separate Attachment entitled Transitional Committee for Green Climate Fund). e. ADB/WB Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) Region Wide Component i. Climate Investment Funds (CIF) 1. A global and multi-donor initiative 2. Bridging the financing and learning gap between now and a post-2012 global climate change agreement 3. Designed to provide scaled-up financing channeled through the Multilateral Development Banks – AfDB, ADB, EBRD, IADB, WBG 4. More info at:www.climateinvestmentfunds.org ii. Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR)

17

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands 1. PPCR in two phases: Planning for each stage will be carried out through country led joint missions involving the MDBs and other development partners. Phase 1 supports countries (and regions) to develop a Strategic Program for Climate Resilience (SPCR). Phase 2 supports implementation of the Strategic Program iii. PPCR Pacific Pilot: Regional Track 1. Aims to assist countries through specific regional initiatives, or initiatives that can be scaled up and replicated at regional level 2. Builds on ongoing regional efforts making use of existing frameworks and collaboration mechanisms at regional level by countries, regional organizations and development partners 3. Fosters regional cooperation with key roles for regional organizations working on climate change issues, particularly PIFS, SPREP and SPC/SOPAC 4. Complement (not duplicate) regional processes to improve access to climate change finance iv. PPCR Pacific Pilot: Regional Track Components 1. Component 1: Mainstreaming CCA and DRM in national development policies and plans 2. Component 2: Identify and implement practical climate change adaptation knowledge and experience 3. Component 3: Enhance capacity of PICs to access and manage climate change resources v. Implementation Arrangements 1. Implementing Agencies: ADB and WB 2. Executing Agencies: PIFS and other CROP agencies with specific responsibilities for each component as appropriate and to be confirmed 3. Implementation will be in full consultation with national governments, and with the support of development partners and regional stakeholders DAY 2: TUESDAY 15 OF MARCH 2011 The second working day followed the same format as the previous day. It was again broken down into three sessions (Sessions 4-6) with the fourth session dedicated to the Climate Change Regional Policy Framework, the fifth session to Climate Change Adaptation, and the sixth session to first working group activity.

Session 4: Climate Change Regional Policy Framework Session four focused on the Climate Change Regional Policy Framework. Participants again sat through presentations for this particular session. First presenter presented on Regional Climate Change Coordination, second group of presenters presented on Climate Change Policy and Information

18

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands Management, and the third group composed of country reps presented on their respective Country Policy and Mainstreaming and Action Planning Initiatives. After all presentations were given, the remainder of the session was dedicated to discussions and Q&A. 1. Regional Climate Change Coordination a. Background i. Pacific leaders have established the RIF process (at Niue in 2008) which streamlined the number of regional agencies ii. Leaders through RIF also directed regional agencies to better coordinate their efforts to the benefit of Pacific countries b. Some suggestions for improving coordination on climate change i. The CROP CEO Task Force on Climate Change can and should play the key role in coordinating efforts between regional agencies ii. The PCCR is an established mechanism and can and should continue to play a key role in coordinating efforts on climate change iii. Linkages between the CROP CC Task Force and the PCCR should be established iv. Coordination at the regional level is only one part of the equation. It is also required: At National Levels: particularly between Finance Ministries and Environment/Natural Resource Ministries. Efforts to establish National CC Committees and coordinating structures should be encouraged. v. Coordination is also required 1. Between donors. Donor support must recognize and support existing processes and policies, particularly national priority setting such as through NAPAs and PACC. The DPCC is a useful forum which should be continued and perhaps expanded.

Between donors and regional agencies e.g. UNDP, Australia (ICCAI) and

SPREP. c. Recommendations/Next Steps i. Discussion of suggestions for improving coordination at this Climate Change Roundtable (Working Group IV on Wednesday) ii. Suggestions can be fed to the CROP CEOs Task Force on Climate Change iii. SPREP sees enhanced coordination as very important for better support for Pacific countries to address climate change in our region.

2. Climate Change Policy and Information Management a. Presentation of the revised PIFACC document b. Presentation on the Climate Change Portal i. Recommended portal Model 1. Three core functions 2. Central agency operates with temporary out posted staff 3. Hosted through infrastructure service or regional partner 4. Partnership agreements for content / technology sharing 5. Governance Committee

19

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands ii. Portal Design Outcomes 1. Intent of being a regional website: No single agency branding of website, considered a regional resource 2. Consideration of internet connectivity and varied bandwidth across region 3. Usability principles: A light, optimised website for low bandwidth users consistent look and feel 4. Technical capability to build and support portal within the region: Usage of pre-built web content management systems 5. Available base data, in particular spatial information: Map data not primary delivery form. No part of initial deployment 6. Technology usage trends and rregionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s cultures a. Extensive statistics on user behaviours b. Extensive use of PDF format c. Ability to print each page d. Offline version available on DVD e. Portal content emailed to users 3. Country Policy/Mainstreaming and Action Planning Initiatives a. Tonga: First Joint CCA & DRM NAP b. RMI Climate Change Policy c. Niue Climate Change Policy d. Cook Islands: National CCA & DRM NAP development process e. Discussions and Q&A with Country Rep presenters.

Luncheon Event A luncheon event was hosted by SPREP/SOPAC and UN immediately after session 4 of the PCCR. SPREP/SOPAC presented on Climate Change Adaptation & Disaster Risk Management: Partnership in Mainstreaming and the UN presented on Green Growth for inclusive and Sustainable Development: Powering Low carbon development for Asia Pacific.

Session 5: Climate Change Adaptation The fifth session of the PCCR again was all dedicated to presentations on Adaption in the Pacific-Region Wide. First presenter from UNDP (UN) gave an Overview of the UN Climate Change Support to the region, second group of presenter (SPREP PACC Team) presented on PACC project Progress to date, the third group of presenters from AusAID presented on Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative, the 4th presenter from SPC presented on SPC Climate Change related Initiatives, and our final presenters for session 5 presented on Regional Biodiversity and Climate Change initiativesSPREP & CI. 1. Overview of the UN Climate Change Support to the region 2. PACC Project Progress to date

20

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands 3. Australia’s International Climate Change Adaptation Initiatives a. In June 2010, Australia announced it would contribute A$599 million to fast-start financing for climate change b. Balanced between adaptation and mitigation c. Includes funding delivered through the International Climate Change Adaptation Initiative (ICCAI) d. Through the ICCAI, Australia is investing A$328.2 million over five years (2008 to 2013) to meet high priority climate adaptation needs e. Primary geographic emphasis is Pacific Island Countries with an allocation of up to A$160 million f. ICCAI Components: Improved Science (PCCSP), Strategic Planning & Vulnerability Assessment (PASAP), Priority Actions: Financing/implementation/coordination, and Multilateral Support.

4. SPC Climate Change related Initiatives a. Key Focus of SPC Activities i. Food and water security ii. Extreme weather events/DRR: Managing risks to livelihoods and economic infrastructure iii. Health impacts iv. Coastal zones v. Building knowledge and understanding across all sectors vi. Other sectors SPC works with include Human development, gender, culture, youth, education, human rights, statistics and geoscience b. SPC Climate Change Partner Support i. Australia, Germany, EU, France, USA. ii. Australia – food security and CC mainstreaming iii. SPC/GIZ 2009 –2014 (€ 18m for 14 countries) iv. CC mainstreaming, pilot projects, tourism, energy, education, land and resources, forestry v. SPC/EU (€ 20m for DRR and € 11.4 for 9 SIDS) vi. 2011-2014 vii. Finance and governance, pilot projects, technical support viii. France (coastal zones); USA (under discussion) 5. Regional Biodiversity and Climate Change Initiatives a. Grant provided under ICCAI - $300,000 b. Consultative meeting in May 2009 to develop project c. Project components being implemented in partnership with CI: i. Data and Identify Information Gaps on Biodiversity Status, Climate Change Threats to Biodiversity and Potential for EbA in the Pacific ii. Identify, adapt, harmonise (develop) a set of tools for EbA tailored for the Pacific, identify and apply criteria for test sites and then test tools for implementation and monitoring of EbA

21

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands iii. Communicate opportunities for EbA in the Pacific d. Other project components: i. Policy and legal requirements for EBA in Pacific countries identified ii. Develop a full-scale project proposal on Pacific Biodiversity and Climate Change Ecosystem-based Adaptation in the Pacific Session 6: Working Groups-First Breakout This particular session was dedicated to our first working group activity. There were two working groups that were convened. One was the Adaptation and Mainstreaming Working Group which I was a part of and the other one was the Mitigation working group which my colleague Annette N. Note was a part of.

1. Adaptation and Mainstreaming Working Group a. The working group recommended further work on developing a loss and damage mechanism for the region, working with relevant international and regional agencies, and using a â&#x20AC;&#x153;think tankâ&#x20AC;? approach to developing ideas and proposals. It agreed to develop terms of reference for a study on the implications on climate change and displacement, resettlement and relocation. It will also develop a manual of best practices on community based approaches. A database on suitable technologies should also be established. b. It also noted that a joint meeting with the Pacific Platform for DRM, the PCCR and RMSD every 4 years, from 2013, would bring together a wide range of expertise from the region. c. Full consideration should be given to gender and cultural issues in adaptation and mainstreaming in the Pacific region. In addition to mainstreaming climate change issues at the national level, through JNAPs, the group agreed there is an urgent need to mainstream climate change issues at the sector and local levels, incorporating including gender and cultural considerations. To support mainstreaming at all levels, the working group recommends key actions, including to: i. Develop key knowledge products such as a manual of best practices on community based approaches; and harmonized and consolidated climate change adaptation and mitigation mainstreaming guidelines that reflect experiences and lessons learnt in various mainstreaming exercises in the region and best practices. ii. Provide mentoring and hands on practical training in technical aspects of adaption and mainstreaming of climate change 2. Mitigation Working Group a. The working group noted that the upfront capital costs of renewable energy technologies remains a challenge for the Pacific and solutions (such as revolving funds) are required to spread these costs over time, including through the new and existing funds. Noting that the energy systems in the region are too small to qualify for CDM the working group proposed that in the development of the mitigation elements of the

22

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands Green Fund that these particular challenges of PICs situations are taken into account in terms of defining eligibility criteria. b. There should also be a better reflection at the international level of mitigation actions in the Pacific region, and the working group recommended that a stocktaking of actions be undertaken and documented. PICs as well as PITs should be encouraged to develop these into reportable NAMAs, including low-carbon policies. There should be a broadening of the mitigation discussions to REDD, waste management, tourism, transportation and agriculture, and taking stock of what is occurring in terms of mitigation. c. The working group urged the continuation of the capacity building efforts for energy efficiency and renewable energy systems, and specifically including electric power utilities in the capacity building activities. There should also be a survey of the real energy costs in outer islands, and of regulatory disincentives to renewable energy and energy efficiency. There is also a need to link mitigation with adaptation issues through mainstreaming. The need to give full consideration to gender and cultural issues in mitigation and mainstreaming in the region was emphasized.

DAY 3: WEDNESDAY 16 OF MARCH 2011 The third working day followed the same format as the previous day. It was again broken down into three sessions (Sessions 7-9) with the seventh session dedicated to Negotiations-Action plan for Durban, the eight session dedicated to Working Groups-Second Breakout, and the ninth session again dedicated to Working Groups: Reporting Back to Plenary.

Session 7: Road to Durban For this particular session, the topic was on Negotiations-Action Plan for Durban. It started out with a plenary presentation from NGO/Civil Society (Climate Action Network) on their Priorities and Actions for 2011. SPREP immediately followed with their presentation on the Priority Setting for Durban and the session ended with a plenary discussion on the Road to Durban.

1. Plenary presentation from NGO/Civil Society (Climate Action Network) on their Priorities and Actions for 2011 2. Priority Setting for Durban a. Awareness of meeting schedule i. 28 March to 8 April: FCCC AWG, and AOSIS Bangkok ii. 23 to 26 May: ICCAI PASAP Lessons Learned, Apia iii. 31 May to 17 June: FCCC Subsidiary Bodies and AWG, preceded by AOSIS Bonn, Germany iv. July/August/September: possibly another negotiating session for FCCC v. 1 to 5 August: Regional Disaster Risk meeting, Auckland vi. August: RMSD & Pacific Meteorology Council, Majuro vii. September: SPREP Meeting, Forum Meeting, SPC Meeting

23

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands viii. 28 November 9 December: FCCC COP 17, likely preceded by AOSIS preparatory meeting, Durban, South Africa b. Priority issues i. Adaptation committee – composition and governance structure ii. Loss and damage work programme iii. Climate change financing – Transitional Committee iv. Mitigation targets, linkage to science, revision of reporting guidelines v. How could PICs go ahead and register their current and planned mitigation actions vi. Implications to PICs to participate or opt-out of enhanced reporting requirements for inventories c. Key outcome from PCCR i. Understanding of the schedule for year ii. But try to pin down some possible dates for regional preparatory meeting iii. Preparatory meeting in Durban? iv. Agreement on issues to work on, using the WG outcomes? v. Process for inputting to FCCC submissions d. Representation in FCCC Bodies i. Process agreed to at Cancun for modalities for consultation between elected PIC Members and region – should be firmed up ii. Seats for election – will be circulated for information iii. Improving Pacific profile at Durban – plan to be discussed Thursday Session 8: Working Groups-Second Breakout This particular session was dedicated to our second working group activity. There were two working groups that were convened. One was the Climate Change Resources and Regional Coordination Working Group which I was a part of and the other one was the Knowledge Management working group which my colleague Annette N. Note was a part of.

1. Climate Change Resources and Regional Coordination Working Group a. The working group discussed and revised the terms of reference for the group and agreed a work plan in moving forward. b. The working group discussed the regional backstopping mechanism suggested by the Director of SPREP. It was agreed to develop this separately from the development of any Regional Fund (as this was not yet agreed). The working group suggested the backstopping mechanism should focus on providing some key functions to support PICTs, including support for strategic approaches to resourcing, project and M&E development, and advice on sources of funding. Further functions could include a facilitating of access to technical assistance on a needs basis.

24

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands c. It was also suggested that the backstopping mechanism needs to be costed to ensure that it would be a good investment and that options on its structure i.e. stand alone or strengthened existing network should be considered.

d. The PCCR agreed a roster of experts would be helpful in this regard, and it was noted that SPREP is already undertaking this task. The PCCR noted that the development of this roster would follow an inclusive process and the roster would be periodically updated and reviewed. It was also noted that further nominations for the roster would be welcome.

e. The RWG also discussed the development of the “Options Paper on Improved Access to and Management of Climate Change Resources” being coordinated by the Forum Secretariat. The working group suggested the development of case studies, and noted their willingness to be a part of the consultative process in developing the paper. The PIFS was encouraged to continue its consultative process and to pay particular attention to in-country consultation where ever possible to fully gauge the issues most important at the national level, including complexity of access to resources as well as the need to effectively coordinate management of these resources.

f.

The working group also discussed with the Pacific representative on the Transitional Committee for the Green Climate Fund some expectations they had in relation to the Green Fund. They raised a number of initial issues including direct access, modalities, build on existing processes, presenting the case for a special funding window for SIDS, consideration of less stringent requirements for small scale projects, need for institutional support such as the GEF Support Adviser at SPREP and the SIDS officer at the GEF and to promote a quota for SIDS and separate financing for enabling activities in SIDS.

g. Further issues to address are pre-requisites for access and the nature of funds being made available under the Green Fund. The working group agreed to supply further information for the work of the Transitional Committee. It was also noted that the RWG would facilitate coordinated input to the Pacific Representative. The Pacific Representative welcomed submissions from the PCCR, and the RWG and undertook to report back to members on progress in the Transitional Committee through Missions in New York, direct to Kiribati, Niue and Cook Islands who do not have PR’s in NY, and to CROP technical focal points on the issue.

2. Knowledge Management Working Group a. The working group noted the distinction between climate change information and knowledge management, and discussed the key audiences for the climate change web portal. Further discussion will be needed on: (a) clearer identification of audience groups; (b) types of information and products; (c) capacity building needs; (d) process for quality control; (e) involvement of non-government groups and development of a policy in this regard; (e) role of administrators in uploading and management of information; (f) in-country training and awareness raising; (g) removal of barriers to data sharing; and (g) dissemination strategy, including a library of regional climate change information to be disseminated through different means.

25

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands b. It was agreed the portal should be relevant and user friendly. It should also document lessons learned and best practices. c. The PCCR report should be widely disseminated and translated into French if possible.

Information and statements given by Leaders should also be disseminated widely.

Climate change science information and data needs to be relevant at the national level.

The need to assist the out-posting of climate change portal of personnel was also noted.

Information also needs to be continuously disseminated in the more traditional manner.

The need to give full consideration to gender and cultural issues in climate change information and knowledge management in the region was emphasized.

Session 9: Working Groups (First Break Out)-Reporting Back to Plenary For this particular session, the Adaptation WG and the Mitigation WG (First Break out WGs) reported back on their main outcomes and actions to the next roundtable meeting (Outcomes and actions are already mentioned in Session 6: Working Group-First Break out).

DAY 4: THURSDAY 17 OF MARCH 2011 The final working day, like all the preceding work days followed the same format. This particular day was again broken down into three additional sessions (sessions 9-11). Session nine of day 4 was a continuation of day 3 Session 9 which again was on the Working groups. Session ten was dedicated to Capacity Building, and the session 11 was dedicated to Ways Forward.

Session 9 Continued: Working Groups (Second Break Out)-Reporting Back to Plenary For this particular session as was with the first break out, the Climate Change Resource and Regional Coordination WG and the Knowledge Management WG (Second Break Out WGs) reported back on their main outcomes and actions to the next roundtable meeting (Outcomes and actions are already mentioned in Session 8: Working Group-Second Break out).

Session 10: Capacity Building Session 10 was focused on Capacity Building. The first part of this session, participants drafted a communication and public awareness strategy for Durban. The second part of the session was a partner and donor representative roundtable. And the third and final part was dedicated to a Capacity Building exercise.

1. Communications and Public Awareness Strategy Activity a. Participants as a whole discussed several Communications and Public Awareness methods for Durban. Ideas were centered around the following key objectives: i. To raise awareness on climate change and its impacts in the Pacific islands and how to address these impacts (i.e. build resilience?) ii. To promote understanding on the science of climate change in order to be better able to address it

26

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands iii. To provide Pacific island communities with opportunity to share their concerns and expectations relating to climate change with policy makers and leaders, to ensure appropriate solutions/actions? iv. To raise awareness amongst the more influential negotiating nations (industrialized and developed nations, as well as China, Russia, Latin America and India), on the needs and aspirations of Pacific island nations in relation to climate change, including the need to take action to mitigate their emissions, and provide financing/resources to allow the Pacific to better adapt? v. To assist Pacific island countries participate actively in the negotiations on CC vi. To clarify and communicate the Pacific â&#x20AC;&#x153;voiceâ&#x20AC;? and message for the 2011 COP 17 2. Partner and Donor Representative Roundtable a. Development partners and donors met and discussed issues associated with the PCCR, including how to improve the profile and ownership of the PIFFAC and the role of the PCCR itself. b. PIFFAC i. It was mentioned that of awareness and ownership of the PIFACC in the region, ex. Other sectors (need to discuss how we are going to address it- possibly a communication strategy) ii. Whether it could be used as a tool for more effective coordination among donors iii. Whether it could be used to create an enabling environment of trust for more effective use of resources and coordination iv. The process of review should be more transparent and inclusive, of all the PCCR members (not only SPREP Members) take a whole of government approach v. Lessons to be learned from other processes (water sector and the nature conservation roundtable) vi. Clarifications on the roles and links between PIFACC and PCCR: Should the PIFACC be driving the PCCR or the PCCR be driving the PIFACC. c. PCCR i. Clarification on its role. Is it only supposed to be monitoring and evaluation?

And if so should it not be expanded and broadened? Need for development partners to have a clear idea. ii. Too focused on processes and roles, not enough on technical discussions and carrying forward key issues iii. Example possibly more on the policy content in prep for Durban, rather than just process, including identifying key issues and what type of policy inputs would be needed. iv. Strike a balance between info sharing and discussion v. Ownership: countries and other partners having leading roles in chairing, facilitating and WG coordination. For example countries delivered excellent presentations.

27

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands vi. To facilitate interaction with other sectors and not just 'preaching to the converted' consider the possibility of having it back to back with other sectoral processes (ex. Disaster community/Forestry/Economic). Moving beyond just the traditional environment group but also more effective use of resources, fewer GHG emissions. vii. And the other way round: find the strategic entry points to get more information on what other sectors are doing and to be able to input into them.

(Possibly a role for WG members) Feedback should be appropriate to the sectors that it is being fed into. Not just attending meetings but also doing some advocacy and info sharing. viii. Widening the participation of other national representatives (ex. Of the EU Vanuatu) ix. To meet the needs for greater coordination and inclusion will probably mean greater resources x. We recognize the value of the WGs for advancing substantive discussions (ex on the DALA mechanism) xi. Clarification on the resourcing mechanisms of the PCCR (doesn't have a designated secretariat/ doesn't have a budget).

3. Capacity Building Exercise a. Participants shared ideas on how to make sure capacity building events are effective b. Participants also gained input into course design and development Luncheon Event A luncheon event was hosted by SPREP and SPC immediately after session 10 of the PCCR. SPREP and SPC had a joint presentation. They presented on Gender in Adaptation and Low Carbon Development.

Session 11: Final Session-Way Forward The last and final session of the PCCR was a Plenary where all participants reviewed and approved the terms of reference for the Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR). However, the PCCR TOR is still very much a living document and thus is subject to be changed and adjusted accordingly.

CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF PCCR 1. Logistics a. Logistical arrangements by SPREP summarized in a nutshell were a mess. b. Participants werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t properly informed of their living situation. (e.g. Living cost in Niue, necessary supplies for duration of stay, etc). Participants also had to negotiate their living cost with their host families; this should have been taken care of by SPREP prior to participant(s) arrival. c. Ticket arrangements were also a mess. Some participants werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t even listed on the flights. Some even had to be waitlisted.

28

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands d. Per diems weren’t given upon arrival in Niue, participants had to rely on their own cash for the remainder of the week. In addition to that, there were no ATMs in Niue and Niue itself is quite expensive, some participants only had enough cash for one day and this is taking into consideration that per diems weren’t given that Friday upon arrival instead they were given on Monday. e. Limited Internet and Communication f. The PCCR venue itself wasn’t adequate enough to meet the demands of the participants. The projector screen was too small and not everyone could see the screen.

In addition, most participants had the necessary documents emailed to them yet participants had limited internet access.

2. Structure of PCCR a. The PCCR wasn’t action orientated. Most of the working days were spent on presentations. Furthermore, the content of the presentations were information that could have been easily gotten off the internet. In other words, most of the materials presented were already known by participants. The so called “Mobilization of Climate Change Finance” received little action. The whole PCCR itself was spent on discussions on issues already well known by participants. b. Working Groups were very disorganized and hard to manage. For the first 20-30 minutes of working group exercises, participants had to get situated. c. The PCCR was supposed to be chaired by a Country Host Representative yet half if not most of the working days were chaired by SPREP officials.

3. Others a. At first glance, participants noted that a lot of the SPREP employees were also flown in.

This received criticism considering some were flown in just to do administrative work, work that could have been easily done by the host country.

29

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands

Prepared By:

______________________________

______________________________

Annette N. Note Assistant Secretary Bureau of Bilateral Affairs Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Desmond N. Doulatram SNC Support Officer/Policy Officer Office of Environmental Planning & Policy Coordination (OEPPC)

Attachments: 1. PCCR Agenda 2. PCCR Outcomes 3. Transitional Committee Terms of Reference

30

Trip Report for Pacific Climate Change Roundtable (PCCR) in Niue 25 March 2011

Majuro, Marshall Islands