1. Policy dialogue on climate change

2. In this presentation…
An update on international negotiations
Some ideas for dialogue in your country
…why international policy developments on climate change are relevant for national dialogues with your government
Policy dialogue – advocacy or humanitarian diplomacy – is necessary as we believe many international commitments made by governments are not yet implemented nationally or locally, or in a way that builds the resilience of the most vulnerable people. Ultimately, the Red Cross Red Crescent assisting in the implementation of, and accessing funding from, upcoming adaptation funds through national policy dialogues could be an outcome of advocacy efforts. We will therefore explain what is happening globally and how adaptation funds are being made available to governments.
Need to “Change perception and implementation of CCA” “Strategy for resource mobilisation” “Focus on real needs of the affected communities”

3. Science guides the policy makers
2011
IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events
IPCC´s Fifth Assessment reports
The trigger for climate change moving up the agenda has been scientific evidence. We can see initiatives accelerating since 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with their 4th assessment report (AR4). The IPCC is a partnership between the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Office and is an agency that facilitates collaboration between more than climate scientist from all over the world who review scientific data on climate change. It has published assessment reports every five to seven years since 1992 – they are world’s most authoritative, detailed and up to date collection of information regarding what we know and don’t know about climate change, and therefore a key reference point for the Climate Centre. The 2007 report created enormous momentum to get the topic high on every agenda. Its statements were clear and alarming: the human impact on the climate is now unequivocal and is bound to continue at an alarming rate unless substantial measures are taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; it is bringing and will continue to bring the world more extreme- weather events.
The latest important IPCC report has been the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) . A summary for policy-makers was launched in November to great media attention.
The 5th IPCC Assessment Report (AR5) published in The Climate Centre’s director was coordinating lead author of SREX and is a lead author of the AR5.
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, 3 3

4. global guidance for national policies
The UNFCCC process:
global guidance for national policies
Climate change is a global problem. Countries therefore agreed to address this problem in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that was signed in Initially the main focus of the UNFCCC was to address the root cause: the emission of greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol (signed in 1997) focused on emission reductions by developed countries. The protocol expired in 2012, but some industrialized countries agreed to a ‘second commitment’ period. A negotiation process was started in 2007 that should have led to a new agreement in Two main changes had happened since the 1990s:
New emerging economies like India and China have become large greenhouse gas emitters, so there are calls from the original developed countries that a new agreement should also include commitments by the new ones.
It was acknowledged that climate change is already happening so countries should ‘adapt’ to the unavoidable impacts.
Adaptation, in particular in the most vulnerable developing countries, became a main issue in the negotiations. Also, financing developing countries to reduce their emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change, needed to be addressed globally since these costs are in the range of $400–700 billion annually. Negotiations should have led to a new agreement in 2009 at UNFCCC COP But this did not happen – countries were too far apart. Developed countries did commit to ‘fast-start finance’ of $30 billion for developing countries in 2010– 12, but most of it came out of the official development aid budgets.
At the 2010 COP 16 conference in Cancun in Mexico, countries agreed to establish the ‘adaptation framework’, which describes the priorities for adaptation sectors and actions. Disaster risk reduction and risk management were key components of the framework, and there is a clear role for the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement in assisting countries adapt to climate change.
At the 2011 COP 17 in Durban, a decision was made to create National Adaptation Plans for developing countries. States also agreed on the key modalities of the Green Climate Fund. This fund should reach $100 billion annually by 2020, to support developing countries with both mitigation and adaptation.
Negotiations on global commitments to reduce greenhouse gases have slowed down over the years. In Durban, countries agree to try again in a new negotiation process that should lead to an agreement in 2015.
At the 2012 COP 18 in Doha, there was little progress in the negotiations towards an agreement in 2015, notably on the reduction of greenhouse gasses. To continue support for developing countries in financing mitigation and adaptation some developed countries made pledges, but as yet not close to the $10 billion annually in 2010–12, let alone towards the $100 billion annually agreed in Copenhagen at COP With the backing of the poorest and most vulnerable countries, a third pillar in the negotiations is developing: arrangements that cover loss and damage from climate-related impacts. Because mitigation efforts are too slow and adaptation programmes may not be sufficient, loss and damage is inevitable.
For National Societies, the decisions on incorporating disaster risk management into the adaptation framework and the development of National Adaptation Plans is most important. This is the entry point for policy dialogues with national governments to assure areas of expertise and concerns of the Red Cross Red Crescent are well addressed in national policies, plans and implementation – especially services in DRR, disaster management, health, water and sanitation for the most vulnerable people.
At the 2013 COP 19, Discussions on Loss and Damage were started(Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage). NSs were encouraged to continue regular communication with respective governments. Public education and awareness including youth engagement in promotion & Understanding of Climate change and actions were emphasized. Developed countries further agreed to raise ambition in reducing emmissions. Enabled action and international cooperation on adaptation was highlighted as urgently required to enable support implementation of adaptation agenda.
At the 2014 COP 20, A new Climate agreement was discussed to be presented at the next COP21 in Paris. The agreement will however take effect in Agreed that Mitigation should be at the centre of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions(INDCs). More pledges on the Green Climate Fund(Climate financing)
At the 2015 COP 21 in Paris, a new Climate agreement was finally agreed – and the implications for our work will be summarized over the next series of slides 4 4

6. UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres
The cheerful moment when UN Secretary Ban Ki Moon, French President Francois Hollande (right) and UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figureres (left) celebrate the Paris Declaration was agreed, 2015
“We must, we can, we did”
UNFCCC Executive Secretary, Christiana Figueres

7. Paris outcome The measures in the agreement included:
To peak greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible
To keep global temperature increase "well below" 2C and to pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5C
To review progress every five years
$100 billion a year in climate finance for developing countries by 2020, with a commitment to further finance in the future.
Mian headlines of the Pars Declaration – which will be presented in more detail below

8. Key Point #1: for all countries
The Paris agreement applies, for the first time, to all countries
Developed countries must continue to take the lead
Developing nations are encouraged to enhance their efforts

9. Key instrument: (I)NDCs: “nationally determined contributions” that are set by countries individually NDCs contain both mitigation and adaptation

10. Key Point #2: A strong long-term goal on emissions and global temperatures ….but insufficient concrete commitments
Agreement to keep the increase in global average temperature to well below 20C (but with efforts to limit to 1.50C) Aim for GHG emissions to peak as soon as possible In the long-term: towards zero (net) emissions

11. Impacts in practice…. 2oC= DANGER
The current commitments mentioned in the NDCs are not enough to keep warming below 2 degrees: 189 intended NDCs = 95% of global emissions = remarkable level of participation but put collective efforts only on a path to an approximately 30C temperature increase
2oC= DANGER

12. Key Point #3: strong attention for adaptation
Long-term goal on adaptation
Strong focus on stakeholder engagement
Explicit attention for the most vulnerable

13. Key Point #4: big financial commitments
Developed countries should provide at least $100 billion per year to assist developing countries for both mitigation and adaptation (from 2020, to be updated in 2025)

14. Key Point #6: Mandatory Reviews
Each country must communicate Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs)
Progress towards the long-term goal will be tracked through a robust transparency framework (legally-binding)
A review every 5 years (from 2023)

15. Much of what National Societies already do, can set an example to your Government on adaptation in practice
Climate smart disaster risk reduction = adaptation

16. Our volunteers are standing on the front line and are witnessing how climate risks are disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable communities in in the world
#2: Has your NS participated at COP? What was one major disappointment in this engagement and what was one major highlight?
#2: Has your NS actively discussed climate change issues with your Government throughout the years? If yes, what was the most exiting result?
#3: Do you think your NS will engage in the short term with your Government to engage on NDCs or NAPs? 
#3: Has you NS seen the climate change pledge at the International Conference? Would you be willing to see if your leadership is willing to sign this pledge & discuss it with your Government?
#4: 
#5: Has your NS in past 10 year been involved in climate change related programming/ resilience programming (with climate focus)? What has been your most successful experience with climate change related programming?
#6: Has your NS been involved in NAP dialogues? If not, Would you be interested in doing so?

17. International Conference 2007 Together for humanity
Red Cross Red Crescent
International Conference Together for humanity
Commitments were made to address climate change by:
raising awareness
providing humanitarian assistance
improving response capacity
decreasing community vulnerability
integrating management of climate risk into plans and policy
mobilizing human and financial resources
giving priority to actions for the most vulnerable.
International conference 2007
The International Conference of the Red Cross Red Crescent is the formal gathering of the Movement and governments from 187 nations, and decisions therefore have the approval from governments.
At the 2007 International Conference, it was decided to “integrate climate risk management into policies and plans” and “mobilize human and financial resources, giving priority to actions for the most vulnerable” (see declaration in recommended reading).
With the final declaration and the commitment of the IFRC, the ICRC and governments, climate change now needs to be fully implemented in the policy plans and programmes of all National Societies. These commitments can also be an entry point for discussions with governments. Commitments were made to address climate change in the following ways: To RCRC movement, Climate Change remains a major point of concern due to increased disaster occurrences attributed to Climate Change AND the need to be prepared and to better manage disaster risks. 17 17

18. Strategy 2020: mitigation and adaptation
Mitigation: tackling the causes of climate change
Adaptation: adjusting and preparing for change
Strategy 2020
“We also contribute to mitigating the progression of climate change
through advocacy and social mobilization to promote sustainable community development that optimizes communities’ carbon footprints”
Strategy 2020
“Our climate change adaptation work is through scaling up disaster risk reduction measures and strengthening traditional methods of coping with disasters that are relevant in particular environmental contexts”
Climate change commitments are included in the International Federation’s Strategy 2020, which mentions two aspects of climate change. It commits to reducing the Movement’s carbon footprint (mitigation) and it scales up DRR actions and integrate climate change-related risks (adaptation). In practice most of our work will be on adaptation, and ensuring that local, national and international programmes for disaster management, health and water and sanitation are ‘climate smart’. 18 18

19. Our message to governments is closely related to what we already do
Disaster management
Health and care
Water and sanitation
Food security
CLIMATE (CHANGE) RISKS
$28–67 billion per year by 2030
“People First”
Climate change risks cut across sectors and will have to be dealt with across sectors. This is not only challenging within the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement but for governments too. It is always smart in the Red Cross Red Crescent to start thinking about how to integrate the implications of climate change and climate risk management across different programmes and departments.
DRR is identified as a main element of climate change adaptation. This means there is huge overlap between what we consider to be climate change adaptation and DRR. Within the Red Cross Red Crescent we already have the experience to work in strengthening community resilience, with health, water and sanitation, as well as programmes on disaster preparedness and the mitigation of disasters. Therefore climate change adaptation is nothing new to us; only project design is slightly different.
If you have no practical example to show to your government, you can easily demonstrate experience from one of your neighboring National Societies that can help you to make the case. 19 19

20. Climate change needs humanitarian actors to:
Scale-up disaster preparedness and risk reduction
Position yourselves as key players in adaptation
Engage in country-level adaptation policy and implementation
Work with development, DRR, and environment actors
Ensure your activities address the risk of extreme weather
Contribute to long-term development
Be aware of relevant adaptation funding
Influence donors to fund humanitarian work from adaptation budgets
“The needs of the vulnerable are at the centre of national policies”
(Source: OCHA 2010)
Disaster risk management has been recognized in the international climate negotiations as a core component of adaptation. There are actions that humanitarians can take to link with adaptation efforts at national and local levels. The information in this slide is taken from Potential new climate change adaptation funding sources for disaster preparedness activities – a 2010 OCHA background paper. It outlines that in the short term, humanitarians can:
• Scale-up disaster preparedness at all levels and help build the capacity of disaster-prone countries to adapt to the adverse humanitarian impact of climate change;
Position themselves as key players in the adaptation debate and framework, especially at the country level, where the majority of adaptation decisions will be made, as well as at the regional level;
Engage in country-level adaptation policy and programming, especially by promoting the inclusion of preparedness and by working closely with government counterparts and demonstrating the added value of humanitarian action in adaptation efforts so as to be considered as implementing partners of country-driven adaptation and preparedness processes;
Together with development, DRR, and environment actors, develop common approaches to adaptation financing to ensure appropriate scale and type of funding;
Ensure that preparedness and early-recovery activities address immediate and future extreme weather risks as well as contribute to longer-term development objectives as part of a single, integrated effort;
Be aware of relevant adaptation funding mechanisms and ensure that, as applicable, applications for preparedness funding are submitted;
•Influence bilateral donors to earmark a sufficient proportion of their overall adaptation funding for humanitarian activities.

21. Community based experiences
Influence how adaptation takes place through dialogue with
Government and decision-makers
Knowledge centres like meteorological offices and universities
NGOs, UN agencies, donors and the private sector
Bottom up
National strategies
The Red Cross Red Crescent Movement’s International Conference Commitments of 2007 and the COP 17 decision on the National Adaptation Plans requires us to engage in humanitarian diplomacy or advocacy, in particular to influence national adaptation planning and funding allocation. But how?
As auxiliary to governments, National Societies often have unique platforms for engaging in national discussions and planning, and influencing how climate change adaptation is planned for and rolled out. Playing an active role in national dialogue – and positioning the National Society as a credible actor in climate-smart DRR that incorporates a changing climate – is critical to help attract funding from the opportunities for adaptation funding increasingly becoming available at the national level.
There is also a possibility to have MoUs signed with relevant line ministries. Forinstance IFRC signed an MoU with WMO in 2013 and this could be replicated at national society level.
ADAPTATION
Community based experiences
Top down 21 21

22. Information can save lives
Try to influence policy-makers:
- to invest in risk reduction at local levels, with an eye on the most vulnerable
- to make better use of climate information
across all timescales
A Red Cross Red Crescent strategy for dealing with climate change and promoting adapting could be to try to better understand and pre-empt climate-related hazards through the systematic use of climate information available for early warning. This can occur on timescales of hours, days, weeks, months and even years. Yet early warning is not a technology but part of a system that relies on a chain of actors and responses. The use of this information poses serious challenges, but also creates an advocacy opportunity. Increased interaction between end-users such as humanitarians and climate and weather information providers is required to ensure more user-friendly, needs-driven climate information so that ultimately lives can be saved and injuries limited.
Information can save lives

23. Engaging at the National Level
Check if NDC document for your country (check for opportunities for engagement / contribution)
Check with the government / climate change focal point if a National Plan of Action on Climate Change is available
Compare the NAP and NDC for your country and identify the areas where your NS can be engaged
Prepare a letter to the government urging them to sign the Paris agreement before 21 April 2017
Convene stakeholders meetings on the implementation of NDC, NAP and the Paris agreement
Investigate opportunities to sit on committees dedicated to national climate change issues
Engage in mainstreaming DRR and CC and access locally available funds for DRR, CCM and CCA work
Consistently follow up on the stakeholders meeting outcomes
Find out what has been published in terms of strategies and policies by your government. Within the UNFCCC framework, most of the least developed countries have written a National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) a few years ago. This was the first generation of national adaptation plans. Since the COP decisions in December 2011, a second generation of “National Adaptation Plans (NAP) plans will be developed and implemented by governments; in addition, the Intended Nationally Determined Commitments (INDCs) will often summarize the formal commitments (reported to UNFCC) and they will/may list relevant adaptation options. Influencing next generation INDCs is a key opportunity for advocacy.
Read through the relevant adaptation policies/INDCS/NAPs etc. of your government and find out whether the humanitarian consequences of climate change are acknowledged and addressed. Look for key words like disaster risk reduction, early warning systems, community based adaptation, most vulnerable people, food security, health, water and sanitation.
Decide whether the humanitarian consequences are sufficiently addressed. You can always contact the Climate Centre for advice.
Most countries submit “National Communications” on climate change to the UNFCCC. Even though the main parts of these reports are about greenhouse-gas emissions (of less relevance for the Red Cross Red Crescent), they also describe the vulnerability of your country to climate change impacts in the coming decades and provide a good background. See also:
On the UNFCCC website you can find the contact information for national focal points – the ministry where you can find out about the adaptation policy of your government.

24. Engaging at the Sub-National/Local Level
Identify the adaptation and risk reduction needs in the communities that you are working with (use the VCA findings or any other risk assessment results)
Analyse how the NAP, NDC and the Paris agreement outcomes can be translated into local actions
Meet with your local government authorities and discuss how these CCA measures could be incorporated into the local development planning
Together with the local government authorities organize local or sub-national stakeholders meeting to create awareness about NDC, NAP and Paris agreement outcomes
Discuss, agree and prepare a roadmap with the leadership of the local authorities on mainstreaming CCA and DRR into stakeholder’s area of work
Together with the local government authorities and/ or with the other relevant stakeholders reach out to the vulnerable communities and sensitize them on NDC, NAP and Paris agreement outcomes, and give them guidance on the need for CCA and risk reduction implementation strategies
In our community-based projects, make sure that your activities are climate-smart and risk informed
Provide trainings and develop skills of your staff and volunteers on climate-smart programming and risk informed development

25. Further Guidance and Support
Indicate interest to better engage in the follow up to COP21 at the country level to the IFRC for further information and support
IFRC can draft a model letter for National Societies to sign and send to their governments to urge them to sign the Paris agreement before 21 April 2017 (and ratify the agreement as its follow-up).
Address IFRC and the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Centre to learn more about the opportunities for contacting relevant partner organisations
Address IFRC to learn more about the innovative initiatives such as One Billion Coalition for Resilience, Partners for Resilience, Small and Simple Actions

26. Influence policy and resource allocation
...otherwise risk funding may go to protect infrastructure and not reach vulnerable communities
Use Red Cross Red Crescent influence to advocate for adaptation funds, not only to cover the protection of infrastructure (too easy a default opportunity for political and administrative actors), but to make sure funding finds its way to vulnerable people and communities to help them adapt to new circumstances.
There is a great variety of national adaptation policies. Often ‘hardware’ – tangible measures like seawalls and a focus on climate-proofing infrastructure – tends to dominate ‘software’, like capacity building of the most vulnerable people, DRR and health programmes. In many countries it is not clear what the criteria are for the selection of sectors or regions for adaptation.
When you believe the humanitarian consequences are not sufficiently addressed, find out what could be the best ways to raise this concern. Contact the lead official of the government to get more information and find out whether there are possibilities to include humanitarian concerns. Bring concrete suggestions. A paper with these suggestions may be helpful at this stage. Find like-minded organizations. Use successful examples from other countries in the region to make your case.
Seek advice from the Climate Centre to get international commitments adopted through covering humanitarian consequences of climate change such as DRR and adaptation overlaps, concerns for the most vulnerable, wider stakeholder consultations. By referring to these international texts you can demonstrate to policy makers that by including Red Cross Red Crescent they can better deliver on commitments, reach communities and possibly increase their access to funding.
Photos: Danish Red Cross 26

27. Financial mechanisms to fund adaptation
Several funds have been created to provide financial assistance for developing countries to adapt, such as:
Least Developed Countries Fund
Special Climate Change Fund
Adaptation Fund
Pilot Program on Climate Resilience of the Climate Investment Funds (World Bank)
Fast Start Finance
The Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund have disbursed the most finance for adaptation.
The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) primarily supports the preparation and the implementation of developing country government National Adaptation Programme for Action (NAPAs). As of January 2013, it had disbursed $281 million (with $380 million co-financing) to 99 projects in 48 countries. The Global Environment Facility (GEF), an operating entity of the UNFCCC’s financial mechanism, administers the LDCF. All Least Developed Countries are eligible for support.
The Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) was established in 2002 to support long-term adaptation measures that increase the resilience of national development sectors to the impacts of climate change. It is administered by the GEF on behalf of the UNFCCC COP. To date, the SCCF has disbursed $70 million for adaptation projects (with $650 million co-financing), many of which have focused on water and coastal zone management, and strengthening capacity to cope with drought.
The Adaptation Fund (AF) was established under the Kyoto Protocol and made operational in It is the only multilateral adaptation finance mechanism funded by an automated funding source and has introduced direct access to its resources. This means that recipient countries can directly access financial resources from the fund via a country- designated ‘National Implementing Entity’ (NIE), which meets standards of transparency and effectiveness. Benin, Senegal, and South Africa are among the first few countries to register ‘NIEs’. As of January 2013 , the AF has approved $166million for projects in 25 different countries, and $41 million disbursed so far.
The Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR) is a programme under the World Bank administered Climate Investment Funds (CIFs). It was set up in 2008 to provide incentives for integrating climate resilience into national development planning, and multi-lateral development bank programming. As of June 2012 $1,1 Billion has been pledged for 25 pilot countries and regions. It has sought to take a programmatic approach rather than financing individual projects. The fact that the PPCR offers loans to least developed countries for adaptation finance is also an issue of some controversy.
The Fast Start Finance was a commitment by developed countries in Copenhagen to finance climate action (both mitigation and adaptation) in developing countries for a total of $30 billion. Some of these finds went to the above mentioned funds, some went via multilateral agencies, and some was used in bilateral programmes. At the UNFCCC finance portal the reports from different (not all) donor countries can be found.
(Source: 27

28. New funding opportunities through dialogue
UNFCCC Adaptation Fund
EU Global Climate Change Alliance
World Bank Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery
World Bank Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience
Bilateral programmes from donor countries
In the last few years, new resources – mainly out of the fast-start finance commitments – have become available. Yet most of these funds are earmarked for governments and implemented with the support of international agencies. For civil society it is cumbersome and close to impossible to have direct access to them. These funding opportunities are works in progress; so far we have seen few calls for proposals from civil society organizations. One example, however, has been the Australian government’s Community Based Climate Change Action Grants in Asia and the Pacific. Project funding for Vietnam and Vanuatu were successfully obtained by Red Cross.
Many of the international adaptation funding opportunities stress that civil society should be “consulted”. This demonstrates how important it is to get involved with your government in national adaptation plans. The Red Cross Red Crescent Movement can play a role in ensuring that funds reach the most vulnerable; National Societies can assist governments in doing this. New funds like the ones mentioned here are evolving. The Climate Centre can provide updates on the funds and programmes available in your country.
(Usually not accessed via calls and applications) 28

29. An old example from www.adaptation-fund.org
“In the process of achieving enhanced disaster preparedness, community members and community-based organizations (CBOs) will be strengthened for improved communication, public awareness, and response to GLOF early warning signals”
The Adaptation Fund has been established by the Parties of the UNFCCC to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The resources are spent through national, regional or (like the World Bank or UNDP) multilateral implementing entities.
You can find which countries have implementing entities and what kind of programmes are in the pipeline or approved by the AF board at
It’s also interesting to see which projects have already been funded. Are there enough initiatives addressing the climate change impacts at local levels? You can inquire how and if humanitarian concerns are addressed in national planning and how Red Cross Red Crescent National Societies can help. 29

30. Websites worth monitoring:
unfccc.int
adaptation-fund.org
gefonline.org
gfdrr.org
climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/ppcr
weadapt.org
A selection of websites worth monitoring in relation to adaptation funding. 30