Thursday November 26th 2009
Vredespaleis, The Hague, The Netherlands

3rd Conference on adaptation to climate change in developing countries 

On November 26th 2009 the 3rd Conference on Adaptation to Climate Change in Developing Countries took place in the Vredespaleis (Peace Palace) in The Hague, The Netherlands. Over 200 representatives from humanitarian and development NGOs, scientific institutions, government and businesses attended and participated in the conference.

On this page you can find a written report on the plenary session and the panel discussion and all the powerpoints presented during the workshops in the afternoon program. The full program of the conference can be found here.

The conference was organised by the Klimaatbureau HIER in cooperation with NCDO and Worldconnectors and partners united in the Millennium Agreement “Controlling Climate Risks” (scientific institutions, companies and NGOs ). The Klimaatbureau coordinates the HIER (HERE) climate campaign, an initiative of over 40 Dutch NGOs sponsored by the Dutch Postcode Lottery. NCDO (National Committee for International Cooperation and Sustainable Development) involves people in the Netherlands in international cooperation and supports them with information, subsidies and advice. The millennium goals provide the point of reference for all these activities. In the year 2000, 189 countries agreed on these goals in order to reduce worldwide poverty before 2015.

More information (in Dutch) on the 2007 conference, (e.g. program and presentations) can be found here
More information on the 2008 conference, (e.g. program and presentations) can be found here

The morning session of the conference was chaired by Madeleen Helmer (Head of the Red Cross Climate Centre).

The first speaker was Herman Wijffels (Co-chair of the Worldconnectors and formerly the Dutch representative at the World Bank). Before discussing the specifics of the Copenhagen talks he emphasised their broader significance - as the next step in a set of global conferences stretching back more than thirty years – that were slowly bringing the world closer to the system of global governance needed to create a sustainable civilisation and economy. This he argued, should not be forgotten amidst all the hard issues that need to be negotiated next month.

He reminded the audience that the focus of these negotiations will be on four main issues a). setting clear and binding emissions targets, b). establishing a cap and trading system for these quotas c) establishing a generous package of funds and transfers from developed (‘Annex 1’) countries to less developed ones and d). creating an effective institutional architecture for doing this. While much of the mainstream coverage of Copenhagen (in the north at least) is about emissions targets, the second two issues are of far more concern to developing countries and the development community in the north – and provided the main focus of this conference.

Mr. Wijffels stressed that it was imperative that funds provided to developing countries for the purpose of climate adaptation needed to be additional to existing Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) and that their allocation in the recipient countries needed to be integrated into national development efforts. He identified five key areas in which such funds could meet both development and climate adaptation goals: water management, soil protection, protection of vegetation and forests, renewable and sustainable energy systems and the capacity building necessary to develop these technologies and their implementation. He further stressed that existing financial mechanisms (WB, GEF) need to be used, but that these institutions needed be reformed in order to reflect changing international reality.

Suranjana Gupta (from GROOTS International and Huairou Commission,  both global networks) provided a contrasting, grassroots, view of what is already being done on the ground in India and in other developing countries. She described how the Huairou Commission empowers women to become involved in local development issues – and since most of the existing networks and groups are in highly disaster prone areas - these groups have been in the front line in recovery and reconstruction programmes. Experience shows that these groups recognise both the tangible and non-tangible factors that influence risk and resilience. This leads them to adopt approaches in which they mobilise their communities to create practical solutions to problems (e.g. new or improved sanitation or a village grain store) but also lobby government and other institutions for funds, appropriate supportive policies and technical support. Ms. Gupta looked at the work of women’s groups in three developing countries and discussed the emerging model of Community Disaster Risk Resilience Funds which are being piloted in India and Central America. These provide a resource to CSOs to develop their own priorities and a structure for linking with national policy makers and with CSOs in other areas. Despite these successes she recognised that communities that were the victims of climate change had little influence on international policy makers and this probably would not change in the foreseeable future. She concluded with a quote from the Swedish Commission for Climate Change and Development which emphasises the crucial importance of grassroots adaptation, irrespective of what happens at the policy level: “most adaptation will occur at the local level in ways that are usually unnoticed, uncoordinated and UN what by national governments and international agencies”.

Amjad Abdulla (Lead negotiator for the G-77 in the AWG-LCA, vice-chair of IPCC W2 and Director General of the Ministry of the Environment, Energy and Water for the Maldives). As a senior civil servant of a small island state – whose highest point is 2.4 metres above sea level - Amjad Abdulla is well aware of the threat posed by climate change. As lead negotiator for the G77 he feels ashamed when explaining to his fellow countrymen about why more money is not forthcoming and why so little action can be taken and feels like he is constantly making excuses for the world community. There is a huge gape in the measures that could be taken to mitigate against the worst effects of global warming and those that are being taken now. And, while countries at risk are taking those measures that they can afford, this gap comes down to a lack of commitment by developed countries to funding climate adaptation and, equally, not honouring those commitments that they have already made in the past. Amjad Abdulla stressed that these payments must be seen as an obligation – paying for damage already done – rather than a donation and as such, should be additional to existing ODA. He summarised the new initiatives from the Mexican and Norwegian governments that had emerged prior to Copenhagen and talked about how the G77 was likely to respond to them. The main sticking point with most proposals on the table (apart from the timing and amount of funding) is the institutional arrangements that will be used to collect and disburse this money. These issues emerged as the major themes in the Q&A session and debate at the end of the presentations (see below).

Bert Koenders, the Development Cooperation Minister for the Netherlands, was the last of the invited speakers. He was freshly back from EU discussions at which, politically for the first time, a group of developing countries was willing to discuss the estimated costs of helping developing countries adapt to the effects of climate change (€100 billion/year both adaptation and mitigation between, 2012 and 2020). He was confident that this represented real progress and this momentum would be sustained in the run up to, and throughout, the Copenhagen Summit. Mr. Koenders argued that the Netherlands saw itself as having a key role to play in facilitating a more equitable set of solutions to climate change, since the country’s entire social fabric was derived from its centuries-long battle with water. He saw the summit in Copenhagen as offering a clear opportunity for putting finance in place that would support the much-talked about green development agenda. He also made some proposals for streamlining the delivery of funds using existing frameworks but with a separate and dedicated Board, responsible solely for managing funds and prioritising their allocation.

Question and Answer Session and Panel Discussion
 
Three clear rupture lines emerged during the presentations and these were energetically taken up during the ensuing panel discussion led by Madeleen Helmer. The first concerned how much money would be needed by less developed countries to adapt to climate change. The second was over the poor record of developed countries in meeting their commitments –to funding climate change, to meeting ODA targets set in the 1970s and, for keeping these two funding streams separate. The last issue concerned the institutional arrangements that needed to be made to collect and manage these funds.

Several questions were raised about how the EU had arrived at its estimate of €100 billion for the whole finance package. Some noted that the World Bank had previously estimated US$60-80 billion per year for adaptation alone. What were the reasons for these differences?

Bert Koenders argued that the EU figure was not a fixed and concrete figure – but more one intended to provide the basis for negotiations. He further stressed that a major part of international funding is meant for adaptation. Other pointed out that some idea of the scale of costs could be derived from the National Action Plans for Adaptation (NAPAs) that have already been drawn up by 45 developing counties. However these may not cover the full costs as developed countries should also pay a share of the opportunity costs of developing countries who maintain ecosystems that provide global environmental services. Questions were also asked about the pledges already made to cover the interim period (2009-2012), how much of this had been received and how much had been channelled from existing ODA budgets. Mrs. Suranjana Gupta argued that the transition period to 2012 could be provide a useful period for experimentation – in the effectiveness (and cost) of implementation and to find the most appropriate financial mechanism(s).

The issue of institutional arrangements was also contentious. The range of opinions voiced from the platform and from the floor covered a wide range of opinions – UN agencies were criticised as being inefficient and bureaucratic- the global financial institutions (WB and IMF) were seen as efficient but structurally biased against the interests of developing counties. The option of creating new institutions would take a lot of time and might duplicate the role of existing institutions– and separate institutional agendas would make it harder to integrate adaptation and development programmes into a coherent whole. Herman Wijffels favoured the WB taking a central role, but argued that it could only legitimately do this if it were fundamentally restructured (in line with some existing proposals). Bert Koenders thought that the decision about institutional structures might best be made by the beneficiaries – the developing countries themselves.

In the afternoon two sessions of five workshops took place. Here you can find the presentations given during these workshops.

PLEASE CLICK ON THE NAME OF THE SPEAKER TO DOWNLOAD A PDF OF THE PRESENTATION
Due to large files some might take a little long to open

13:30 – 15:00 Thematical workshops (1st session, 5 workshops)  

More detailed information on the workshops and the outlines can be found here.

1. Clouds but little rain. Local perspectives on reducing disaster risk in a changing climate
Cordaid, Wageningen Research University, Red Cross, Wetlands International and CARE, with Suranjana Gupta (GROOTS) and presentations by Bruno Haghebaert (The Netherlands Red Cross) and Marcus Oxley (Global Network for DRR NGOs)
A short report of the workshop can be found here.

2. Managing the Water Buffer: 3R Approach in Climate Change Adaptation and Development
Simavi/RAIN Foundation/ MetaMeta Research/ Acacia Water/ CPWC/Aqua4All/ BGR, chaired by Paul van Koppen (RAIN Foundation), with presentations from Frank van Steenbergen (MetaMeta) and Henk van Schaik (CPWC) 

3. Ecosystem based Adaptation - What does it mean and what should it look like?
Pieter van Eijk and Kemi Seesink from Wetlands International with presentations by Esther Blom (WWF) and Theo Klink (DHV)
A short report of the workshop can be found here.

4. Micro-Insurance for crop losses and climate risks, the challenges for scaling up
M.P. Vasimalai, Executive Director DHAN Foundation (India) together with Annette Houtekamer (Eureko) and R. Seenivasan (DHAN Foundation). A short overview of points of discussion can be found here.

5. Climate Change: What Organic Farming and Responsible Land Use Can Deliver?
Darko Znaor, Avalon Associated Expert and Martien Lankester, Avalon Foundation

15:30 – 17:00 Thematical workshops (2nd session, 5 workshops)

More detailed information on the workshops and the outlines can be found here.

1. GIS-based training package for multi-hazard risk assessment
Nanette Kingma and Victor Jetten, department of Earth Systems Analysis from the International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (ITC). More info on courses by ITC here and here. A short overview of points of discussion can be found here.

2. Working towards adaptation: understanding of and building upon local perceptions of climate change and climate variability
Pieter Pauw, Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University Amsterdam and Marije Broekhuijsen en Gijs Aarts from Cordaid

3. Land use and Climate Change, options for mitigation and adaptation
Networkingmeeting facilitated by Klimaatbureau HIER and partners, presentations by Boki Luske, Louis Bolk Institute and Soil & More and Catharien Terwisscha van Scheltinga from Wageningen University and Research centre. 

4. Adressing climate change adaptation within a rural livelihood program in Rajasthan, India.
Neelima Khetan, Director of Seva mandir, a partnerorganisation of ICCO

5. The European climate debate: challenges and responses (with an emphasis on adaptation and finance)
Sjerp van der Vaart, Head of Office from The Netherlands Bureau for the European Parliament with Sabina Voogd (Oxfam Novib), Hans Blokland (Former Member of the European Parliament) and Eric Massey (Researcher, Free University of Amsterdam). Panel discussion led by Mark Kranenburg (NRC)

 

 

 

 

 

All photos by Ton Koene

Conference venue

The conference took place at the Vredespaleis (Peace Palace) in The Hague:

Vredespaleis
Carnegieplein 2
The Hague
The Netherlands

Registration

Almost 300 people registered for the conference. The list of those who have registered can be found here. 
About 15 organisations showed their work in the information market.

Contact

If you have any questions or comments concerning the conference, the reports or the plans for next year's conference please contact Gijs Termeer at the Klimaatbureau HIER: 030-2348267