YOUNGO - Policy WG capacity building - Explanation Panama options Introduction

AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON LONG-TERM COOPERATIVE ACTION UNDER THE CONVENTION Fourteenth session (third part) Panama City, 17 October 2011

WORK OF THE AWG-LCA CONTACT GROUP

Agenda item 3.6 Capacity-building version of 07 October 2011 @ 11:30 Compilation of draft texts for a draft decision
The Conference of the Parties, Recalling decision 1/CP.16 as it relates to capacity-building, Also recalling the capacity-building components in other sections of 1/CP.16, Recalling the provisions related to capacity-building for developing country Parties contained in relevant decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties, especially decisions 2/CP.7 and 1/CP.16, Recalling its decision 1/CP.16 (the Cancun Agreements) and its section IV C on Capacity-building and the requests in paragraphs 136 and 137 for the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention to consider ways to further enhance the monitoring and review of the effectiveness of capacity-building, and elaborate the modalities regarding institutional arrangements for capacity-building, for consideration by the Conference of the Parties at its seventeenth session, Further noting the need to consider ways to further enhance the monitoring and review of the effectiveness of capacity-building under paragraph 136 of decision 1/CP.16 and the need to further elaborate the modalities regarding institutional arrangements for capacity-building under paragraph 137 of decision 1/CP.16, Noting with appreciation the progress made across the UNFCCC bodies and mechanisms, including those agreed to in decision 1/CP.16, to continue to integrate capacity-building into enhanced action on mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and access to financial resources, [and their implementation in decision _/CP.17 at COP-17], Also noting paragraph 65 of decision 1/CP.16, which encourages Parties to develop low emissions development strategies, welcomes those Parties who have already begun the process of developing these strategies, and notes the important capacity-building outcomes that this process and related partnerships can provide,

Reaffirming also that further enhancement of the monitoring and review of the effectiveness of capacity- building is necessary to ensure the sustainability of capacity-building actions in developing countries, Recognizing that the purpose of regular monitoring of capacity-building should be to facilitate assessment of progress made, identification of gaps, and effectiveness of the implementation of the capacity-building framework and contribute to more effective capacity-building action, Acknowledging also that enhanced institutional arrangements for capacity-building are essential to ensure coherence, ownership and timely delivery of capacity-building needs, Reaffirming that capacity-building support is essential for developing countries in order to contribute to the achievement of the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention, Further reaffirming that capacity-building is country driven and national coordinating bodies should drive capacitybuilding in order to address country specific capacity-building needs, Acknowledging also that there are areas of capacity-building needs where bodies do not exist or have not been established and will need specific attention from Parties, Acknowledging also that capacity-building is cross-cutting in nature and that it is also an integral part of enhanced action on mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer and access to financial resources, Also acknowledging that, in addition, there may be specific capacity-building activities that require support to enable developing countries to undertake the enhanced implementation of the Convention,

- THE panama OPTIONS Ways to enhance the monitoring and review of the effectiveness of capacity-building1 Option 1 1. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Implementation, in its work to review the implementation of the capacity-building framework, to consider ways to enhance the monitoring and review of the effectiveness of capacity-building activities in developing countries by organizing in-session in-depth discussions with relevant experts and practitioners, to give inputs for the reviews; Option 2 2. Requests the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to convene a forum annually with a view of exchanging ideas, sharing experiences and acknowledging best practices related to the implementation of capacity-building activities undertaken under the Convention. The forum will include participation from representatives of existing and newly established bodies, experts, and Parties to the Convention; 3. Further requests the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to organize an in-session in-depth discussion to consider tools for monitoring and review of capacity-building activities; Differences between options 1 & 2 regarding monitoring: Option 1 and 2 both request the SBI to organise an in-session in-depth discussion (whatever that may be) to consider tools/ways to enhance monitoring (points 1 & 3). This is not very concrete language, but it means they leave the responsibility of thinking of ways to monitor Capacity Building to the SBI. In option 2 adds that there should be organised a forum each year with representatives of relevant bodies which should also include stakeholders, the best practise should also be presented by NGOs. Modalities regarding institutional arrangements for capacity-building Option 1 4. Encourages relevant institutions under the Convention, in particular the Adaptation Committee, the Climate Technology Centre and Network, the Least Developed Countries Expert Group and the Consultative Group

of Experts on national communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention to contribute to capacity-building in their substantive fields, as appropriate; Option 2 5. Encourages the existing groups, bodies and operating entity of the financial mechanism, including, inter alia the Consultative Group of Experts on National Communications for Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention (CGE), the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG), and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to continue to elaborate and to carry out work on capacity- building for programs and activities in an integrated manner, as appropriate, within their respective mandates; Option 3 6. Requests existing and newly established bodies to undertake capacity-building activities according to their respective mandates; 7. Further requests existing and newly established bodies to submit to the secretariat annual reports of work undertaken related to the implementation of capacity-building activities, including lessons learned based on specific national circumstances;
1 Draft

decision texts submitted by Parties do not contact sub-headings. Subheadings have been added in the compilation by the facilitator to improve its readability.

8. Requests existing and newly established bodies to develop indicators, in order to enhance monitoring, reporting and verification of capacity-building activities in their respective areas; Differences between options 1,2&3 regarding institutional arrangements for capacity building: The first difference is in terms of language. Options 1 and 2 start with the word Encourages whereas option 3 starts with requests. It looks like a stupid choice of words, but in COP language requests is a bit stronger. The content of option 1&2 look a bit the same. They both name some specific organisations that should carry out work on capacity building. The difference is that option 2 adds operating body of the financial mechanism and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) to it. Option is thus more linked to financial institutions as well. Option 3 doesnt name the specific organisations. It only requests existing and newly established bodies to do things (undertake capacity building activities, submit annual reports and develop indicators). However it seems to have the most reliable approach to reporting and monitoring and seems to be most likely to bring outcomes that can be used for recommendations on the way forward. Point 8 looks a bit like the monitoring options (points 1,2 & 3). Capacity-building activities and reporting by Parties Option 1 9. Invites Parties, in particular developing country Parties, to provide information through national communications and other reports to enable the Subsidiary Body for Implementation to monitor progress and effectiveness of actions undertaken in the implementation of the capacity-building framework; Option 2 10. Encourages developing country Parties to continue to provide information to the secretariat through appropriate channels, including national communications, on progress made in enhancing capacity to address climate change, including on the use of the support provided and additional priority areas for enhanced action; 11. Requests developing country Parties to report on progress made and measures taken towards implementing and improving their enabling environments to build national capacity for mitigation and adaptation, and to include needs relevant to enhancing progress of such measures in their communications of capacity-building priorities; 12. Also requests developing country Parties to highlight capacity-building priorities in support of their technology plans, projects, and policies in their requests to the Climate Technology Centre and Network, when relevant and as appropriate;

13. Encourages Parties to bear capacity-building priorities in mind when undertaking low-emissions development strategies and when providing capacity-building support to developing countries; Differences between options 1&2 regarding Capacity building activities and reporting by parties: Again the first difference can be seen in the language here. Option 1 is only one paragraph that starts with invites. This means that this option is voluntary, and in reality it means nothing will happen (most of the time). Another difference can be found in the parties that are named in the options. Option 1 speaks about all the countries (in particular developing countries), whereas option 2 only addresses developing countries. Option 2 looks like an extended version of option 1 but is rather different in some ways. In option 1 all countries are asked to report to the SBI on progress made in implementation of capacity building. Option 2 doesnt mention a organisation that should be reported to. But option 2 addresses in detail that countries should go to the Climate Technology Center and Network if they need some help with their technology plans. They also suggest what should be reported on which makes good sense. Role of the secretariat Option 1 14. Requests the secretariat to prepare a synthesis document drawing on information provided by developing country Parties, in their national communications and submissions and from relevant convention bodies and international and regional organisations on capacity-building activities including lessons learned; Option 2 15. Requests the secretariat (a) to compile and synthesize the submitted annual reports from existing or newly established bodies for the use of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation in its monitoring and review of capacity-building activities; (b) to compile and synthesize capacity-building related information received through various submissions by Parties in areas not captured under existing or newly established bodies with the view of assisting the Subsidiary Body for Implementation in its monitoring and review; (c) to compile and synthesize the outputs of the forum into a report to be submitted to the Subsidiary Body for Implementation, and communicate this report to national coordinating bodies for their use in monitoring and review of capacity-building at national level, once reviewed by the Subsidiary Body for Implementation; Financial support for capacity-building activities 16. Decides that financial support for undertaking capacity-building activities be provided through the existing or newly formed financial mechanisms under the Convention. Differences between options 1&2 regarding the role of the secretariat: The difference between the options lies mainly in the purpose of the report of the secretariat. In option 1 the secretariat should just compile a capacity building progress report (it doesnt say when, or how often), whereas option 2 clearly describes what should be in the report and what it is used for (mainly as an input for the SBI). It looks like option 2 is closely linked to paragraphs 2 & 9, as they mention the specific role of the SBI. Without paragraphs 2&9 option 2 is useless. Paragraph 16 of option 2 is rather important. The word decides indicates that the parties will decide that money should be made available for capacity building activities by the financial mechanism of the Convention (Green Climate Fund).