By Dipesh Chapagain

(Durban) The first half of the UN climate change conference (COP 17) in Durban was about to end and parties were unsure about the outcomes from the conference. Meeting of both the subsidiary body (SBI and SBSTA) were in the closing stage and negotiation was about to enter into the high level segment. In this critical time, I was given the responsibility to make an intervention on closing plenary of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) on behalf of the civil society network Climate Action Network, the network of around 800 NGOs from all around the globe. The different working groups in CAN helped closely to develop the intervention text and I presented it as: 

Thank you Mr. Chair,

My name is Dipesh Chapagain and I will speak on behalf of the Climate Action Network.

CAN welcomes the progress under the loss and damage work programme, including regional workshops. However, COP18 must be established as a milestone to step up ambition. Therefore, a range of possible approaches must be explored, including establishing an International mechanism to address issue of loss and damage.

For national adaptation plans, CAN is anxious that Parties work out the remaining areas of disagreement.  Cancun agreed to enable LDCs to formulate and implement NAPs, additionally it invited other developing country Parties to employ such modalities. This prioritisation of LDCs is based on their limited capacity, not on the issue of vulnerability to climate change.  Nevertheless it should provide a framework that also helps other developing countries to apply such modalities, taking into account their capacities.

On MRV, we are deeply concerned that the new text is fast closing the door to transparent, meaningful and respectful stakeholder participation in the IAR and ICA processes.  Stakeholders, including NGOs, businesses and municipalities, have important scientific and technical information to contribute to the IAR and ICA process. The current text falls short on these elements:

• Recognition of the transparent and inclusive nature of the IAR and ICA processes,
• Allowing stakeholders to provide inputs into the technical analysis by experts, as well as into the International Assessment under the SBI, and
• Ensuring the SBI meeting is open to observer organizations, allowing them (us) to ask questions.

Similarly the CDM Appeals grievance mechanism must grant access to all affected stakeholders and have a broad scope, covering all decisions by the CDM Executive Board and not rejections only.

Finally, CAN would like to express our appreciation to Parties, and to the SBI Chair, for the increased observer participation in this process. We have had feedback from parties that our input is valuable. There is still room to improve the level of engagement, and we encourage all facilitators to take full advantage of the expertise of Observers. The UNFCCC Secretariat has been important in facilitating this engagement, and we support calls for their current level of staffing to be maintained or increased, and for parties to provide sufficient funding for this.

Thank you Chair

Waw, I did it and I was happy to receive a lot of positive feedback from the seniors on my delivery. However, I am eagerly waiting for the meaningful outcomes from this most awaited climate change conference, which will make me happy in real sense.