On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as
demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD seeking LDCs and SIDS. Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs, provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than 1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential. Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present. Afirmations 1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities 2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the nation can proceed unhindered. energy production, consumption, transformation and transport without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens. Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival. Survival is non-negotiable; 4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an accompanying implementation package deemed adequate; 5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be in place and be an integral part of the LBA; 6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation, adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020 ambition; 7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the priority depending on national circumstances as well as the importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without prejudice to the Convention process; 8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as leveraging more investments from the private sector; 9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential. Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic negotiations need to be undertaken; 10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to go about such national legislation process and may provide capacity-building support for the purpose. B. Shared Vision 1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas Demands A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020 ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period. No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception. Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of 1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship with global peaking. Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are as follows: 1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the lead based on CBDR&RC; 2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to their different national circumstances such as level of development, natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the means of implementation (inance, technology development and transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also be an integral element of the LBA. 3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to D. Adaptation 1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional and capacity-building support; 2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far. Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be obvious now and will require smart planning, design and implementation process for which capacity of the countries including inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for technology development would have to be supported. 3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only the lower bound of the costs of adaptation. 4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a multi-stage process and required international support has to be tailored and monitored accordingly. E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts. While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we make the following points: 1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than 2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be different for developing countries based upon full realization of the principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990 baseline; 2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all aspects of global and national management of climate change in particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones (subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in global capability scale. C. Mitigation 1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by 2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as individual nations as well as a group. A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020 target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly. 2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020. community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D capacity in countries. 1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race, ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS. 2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training, development and diffusion. 3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly in case of adaptation in similar environment. 4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies, recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard, the very long term nature of climate change impact and the consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other multilateral arrangements. 5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs. G. Agriculture 1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global good without compromising global and national food security. Country and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss and damage. 2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries. Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained from external sources on account of compensation should go to the government account with the condition that this would be utilized for a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change related loss and damage, including related insurance premium. 3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow from the country or community receiving such insurance covers. 4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of L&D before entering into Paris Agreement. 5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event. 6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on LDCs and SIDS. F. Technology Transfer and Development Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well as domestic technology development. These processes should be country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports. H. Migration 1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a household response mechanism in absence of other viable opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option. Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all relevant discussions. 2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This must be the irst option for the affected country and the international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised. Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate livelihood restoration through robust adaptation. 3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational. An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with human dignity. I. Capacity Building 1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people, Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and implementation of development policies and practices. While this needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the existing ones with enhanced capacity. 2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of capacity/capability along with the national capacity. J. Finance In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there are several important issues related to inance which must receive immediate attention. These are as follows: 1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested and successful climate change resilient technologies, for adaptation and mitigation, in those countries. 2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to, and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full. 3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre and post-2020 funding arrangements. 4. Developed countries should submit information on their strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge; 5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling environments should be continued given the escalating need for inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource mobilisation efforts. 6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one from the other. These become crucial for further development of the Green Climate Fund. 7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage. Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may not be enough and private investments will be necessary. As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made, mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may be available. But wherever private funds may not be available, public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private investment must not result in climate colonialism through net outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into consideration the realised beneits of the investments. 8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be burdened further with other demands such as compensatory grants for recouping past loss and damage. 9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and transparency for the private sector to follow. We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns and our support will always be with your people. sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race, colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status; The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human dignity; And Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement; And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon them as well as the globe. We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We need to initiate stronger and proactive actions. Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is, therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS in this respect. We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to voice their concern about this reversal in commitment. Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable A B a n g l a d e s h C i v i l S o c i e t y D e c l a r a t i o n o n C l i m a t e C h a n g e N e g o t i a t i o n E N S U R E
E Q U IT Y , J U S T IC E
A N D
F A IR N E S S
S U R V I V A L
I S
N O T
N E G O T I A B L E PREAMBLE Whereas, There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change, representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), And Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all development. On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD seeking LDCs and SIDS. Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs, provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than 1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential. Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present. Afirmations 1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities 2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the nation can proceed unhindered. energy production, consumption, transformation and transport without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens. Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival. Survival is non-negotiable; 4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an accompanying implementation package deemed adequate; 5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be in place and be an integral part of the LBA; 6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation, adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020 ambition; 7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the priority depending on national circumstances as well as the importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without prejudice to the Convention process; 8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as leveraging more investments from the private sector; 9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential. Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic negotiations need to be undertaken; 10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to go about such national legislation process and may provide capacity-building support for the purpose. B. Shared Vision 1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas Demands A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020 ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period. No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception. Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of 1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship with global peaking. Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are as follows: 1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the lead based on CBDR&RC; 2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to their different national circumstances such as level of development, natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the means of implementation (inance, technology development and transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also be an integral element of the LBA. 3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to D. Adaptation 1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional and capacity-building support; 2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far. Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be obvious now and will require smart planning, design and implementation process for which capacity of the countries including inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for technology development would have to be supported. 3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only the lower bound of the costs of adaptation. 4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a multi-stage process and required international support has to be tailored and monitored accordingly. E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts. While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we make the following points: 1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than 2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be different for developing countries based upon full realization of the principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990 baseline; 2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all aspects of global and national management of climate change in particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones (subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in global capability scale. C. Mitigation 1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by 2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as individual nations as well as a group. A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020 target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly. 2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020. community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D capacity in countries. 1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race, ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS. 2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training, development and diffusion. 3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly in case of adaptation in similar environment. 4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies, recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard, the very long term nature of climate change impact and the consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other multilateral arrangements. 5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs. G. Agriculture 1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global good without compromising global and national food security. Country and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss and damage. 2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries. Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained from external sources on account of compensation should go to the government account with the condition that this would be utilized for a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change related loss and damage, including related insurance premium. 3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow from the country or community receiving such insurance covers. 4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of L&D before entering into Paris Agreement. 5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event. 6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on LDCs and SIDS. F. Technology Transfer and Development Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well as domestic technology development. These processes should be country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports. H. Migration 1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a household response mechanism in absence of other viable opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option. Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all relevant discussions. 2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This must be the irst option for the affected country and the international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised. Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate livelihood restoration through robust adaptation. 3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational. An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with human dignity. I. Capacity Building 1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people, Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and implementation of development policies and practices. While this needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the existing ones with enhanced capacity. 2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of capacity/capability along with the national capacity. J. Finance In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there are several important issues related to inance which must receive immediate attention. These are as follows: 1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested and successful climate change resilient technologies, for adaptation and mitigation, in those countries. 2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to, and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full. 3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre and post-2020 funding arrangements. 4. Developed countries should submit information on their strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge; 5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling environments should be continued given the escalating need for inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource mobilisation efforts. 6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one from the other. These become crucial for further development of the Green Climate Fund. 7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage. Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may not be enough and private investments will be necessary. As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made, mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may be available. But wherever private funds may not be available, public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private investment must not result in climate colonialism through net outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into consideration the realised beneits of the investments. 8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be burdened further with other demands such as compensatory grants for recouping past loss and damage. 9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and transparency for the private sector to follow. We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns and our support will always be with your people. sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race, colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status; The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human dignity; And Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement; And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon them as well as the globe. We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We need to initiate stronger and proactive actions. Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is, therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS in this respect. We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to voice their concern about this reversal in commitment. Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable PREAMBLE Whereas, There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change, representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), And Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all 03 A Bangladesh Civil Society Declaration on Climate Change Negotiation 02 development. On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD seeking LDCs and SIDS. Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs, provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than 1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential. Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present. Afirmations 1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities 2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the nation can proceed unhindered. energy production, consumption, transformation and transport without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens. Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival. Survival is non-negotiable; 4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an accompanying implementation package deemed adequate; 5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be in place and be an integral part of the LBA; 6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation, adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020 ambition; 7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the priority depending on national circumstances as well as the importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without prejudice to the Convention process; 8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as leveraging more investments from the private sector; 9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential. Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic negotiations need to be undertaken; 10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to go about such national legislation process and may provide capacity-building support for the purpose. B. Shared Vision 1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas Demands A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020 ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period. No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception. Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of 1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship with global peaking. Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are as follows: 1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the lead based on CBDR&RC; 2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to their different national circumstances such as level of development, natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the means of implementation (inance, technology development and transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also be an integral element of the LBA. 3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to D. Adaptation 1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional and capacity-building support; 2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far. Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be obvious now and will require smart planning, design and implementation process for which capacity of the countries including inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for technology development would have to be supported. 3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only the lower bound of the costs of adaptation. 4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a multi-stage process and required international support has to be tailored and monitored accordingly. E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts. While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we make the following points: 1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than 2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be different for developing countries based upon full realization of the principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990 baseline; 2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all aspects of global and national management of climate change in particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones (subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in global capability scale. C. Mitigation 1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by 2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as individual nations as well as a group. A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020 target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly. 2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020. community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D capacity in countries. 1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race, ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS. 2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training, development and diffusion. 3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly in case of adaptation in similar environment. 4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies, recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard, the very long term nature of climate change impact and the consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other multilateral arrangements. 5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs. G. Agriculture 1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global good without compromising global and national food security. Country and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss and damage. 2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries. Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained from external sources on account of compensation should go to the government account with the condition that this would be utilized for a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change related loss and damage, including related insurance premium. 3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow from the country or community receiving such insurance covers. 4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of L&D before entering into Paris Agreement. 5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event. 6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on LDCs and SIDS. F. Technology Transfer and Development Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well as domestic technology development. These processes should be country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports. H. Migration 1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a household response mechanism in absence of other viable opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option. Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all relevant discussions. 2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This must be the irst option for the affected country and the international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised. Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate livelihood restoration through robust adaptation. 3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational. An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with human dignity. I. Capacity Building 1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people, Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and implementation of development policies and practices. While this needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the existing ones with enhanced capacity. 2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of capacity/capability along with the national capacity. J. Finance In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there are several important issues related to inance which must receive immediate attention. These are as follows: 1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested and successful climate change resilient technologies, for adaptation and mitigation, in those countries. 2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to, and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full. 3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre and post-2020 funding arrangements. 4. Developed countries should submit information on their strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge; 5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling environments should be continued given the escalating need for inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource mobilisation efforts. 6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one from the other. These become crucial for further development of the Green Climate Fund. 7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage. Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may not be enough and private investments will be necessary. As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made, mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may be available. But wherever private funds may not be available, public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private investment must not result in climate colonialism through net outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into consideration the realised beneits of the investments. 8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be burdened further with other demands such as compensatory grants for recouping past loss and damage. 9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and transparency for the private sector to follow. We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns and our support will always be with your people. sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race, colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status; The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human dignity; And Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement; And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon them as well as the globe. We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We need to initiate stronger and proactive actions. Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is, therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS in this respect. We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to voice their concern about this reversal in commitment. Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable PREAMBLE Whereas, There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change, representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), And Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all 05 A Bangladesh Civil Society Declaration on Climate Change Negotiation 04 development. On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD seeking LDCs and SIDS. Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs, provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than 1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential. Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present. Afirmations 1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities 2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the nation can proceed unhindered. energy production, consumption, transformation and transport without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens. Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival. Survival is non-negotiable; 4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an accompanying implementation package deemed adequate; 5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be in place and be an integral part of the LBA; 6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation, adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020 ambition; 7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the priority depending on national circumstances as well as the importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without prejudice to the Convention process; 8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as leveraging more investments from the private sector; 9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential. Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic negotiations need to be undertaken; 10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to go about such national legislation process and may provide capacity-building support for the purpose. B. Shared Vision 1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas Demands A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020 ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period. No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception. Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of 1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship with global peaking. Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are as follows: 1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the lead based on CBDR&RC; 2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to their different national circumstances such as level of development, natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the means of implementation (inance, technology development and transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also be an integral element of the LBA. 3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to D. Adaptation 1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional and capacity-building support; 2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far. Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be obvious now and will require smart planning, design and implementation process for which capacity of the countries including inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for technology development would have to be supported. 3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only the lower bound of the costs of adaptation. 4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a multi-stage process and required international support has to be tailored and monitored accordingly. E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts. While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we make the following points: 1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than 2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be different for developing countries based upon full realization of the principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990 baseline; 2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all aspects of global and national management of climate change in particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones (subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in global capability scale. C. Mitigation 1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by 2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as individual nations as well as a group. A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020 target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly. 2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020. community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D capacity in countries. 1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race, ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS. 2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training, development and diffusion. 3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly in case of adaptation in similar environment. 4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies, recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard, the very long term nature of climate change impact and the consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other multilateral arrangements. 5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs. G. Agriculture 1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global good without compromising global and national food security. Country and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss and damage. 2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries. Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained from external sources on account of compensation should go to the government account with the condition that this would be utilized for a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change related loss and damage, including related insurance premium. 3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow from the country or community receiving such insurance covers. 4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of L&D before entering into Paris Agreement. 5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event. 6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on LDCs and SIDS. F. Technology Transfer and Development Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well as domestic technology development. These processes should be country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports. H. Migration 1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a household response mechanism in absence of other viable opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option. Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all relevant discussions. 2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This must be the irst option for the affected country and the international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised. Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate livelihood restoration through robust adaptation. 3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational. An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with human dignity. I. Capacity Building 1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people, Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and implementation of development policies and practices. While this needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the existing ones with enhanced capacity. 2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of capacity/capability along with the national capacity. J. Finance In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there are several important issues related to inance which must receive immediate attention. These are as follows: 1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested and successful climate change resilient technologies, for adaptation and mitigation, in those countries. 2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to, and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full. 3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre and post-2020 funding arrangements. 4. Developed countries should submit information on their strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge; 5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling environments should be continued given the escalating need for inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource mobilisation efforts. 6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one from the other. These become crucial for further development of the Green Climate Fund. 7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage. Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may not be enough and private investments will be necessary. As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made, mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may be available. But wherever private funds may not be available, public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private investment must not result in climate colonialism through net outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into consideration the realised beneits of the investments. 8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be burdened further with other demands such as compensatory grants for recouping past loss and damage. 9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and transparency for the private sector to follow. We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns and our support will always be with your people. sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race, colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status; The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human dignity; And Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement; And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon them as well as the globe. We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We need to initiate stronger and proactive actions. Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is, therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS in this respect. We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to voice their concern about this reversal in commitment. Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable PREAMBLE Whereas, There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change, representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), And Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all 07 A Bangladesh Civil Society Declaration on Climate Change Negotiation 06 development. On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD seeking LDCs and SIDS. Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs, provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than 1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential. Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present. Afirmations 1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities 2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the nation can proceed unhindered. energy production, consumption, transformation and transport without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens. Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival. Survival is non-negotiable; 4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an accompanying implementation package deemed adequate; 5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be in place and be an integral part of the LBA; 6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation, adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020 ambition; 7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the priority depending on national circumstances as well as the importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without prejudice to the Convention process; 8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as leveraging more investments from the private sector; 9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential. Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic negotiations need to be undertaken; 10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to go about such national legislation process and may provide capacity-building support for the purpose. B. Shared Vision 1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas Demands A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020 ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period. No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception. Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of 1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship with global peaking. Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are as follows: 1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the lead based on CBDR&RC; 2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to their different national circumstances such as level of development, natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the means of implementation (inance, technology development and transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also be an integral element of the LBA. 3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to D. Adaptation 1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional and capacity-building support; 2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far. Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be obvious now and will require smart planning, design and implementation process for which capacity of the countries including inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for technology development would have to be supported. 3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only the lower bound of the costs of adaptation. 4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a multi-stage process and required international support has to be tailored and monitored accordingly. E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts. While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we make the following points: 1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than 2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be different for developing countries based upon full realization of the principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990 baseline; 2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all aspects of global and national management of climate change in particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones (subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in global capability scale. C. Mitigation 1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by 2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as individual nations as well as a group. A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020 target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly. 2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020. community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D capacity in countries. 1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race, ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS. 2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training, development and diffusion. 3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly in case of adaptation in similar environment. 4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies, recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard, the very long term nature of climate change impact and the consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other multilateral arrangements. 5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs. G. Agriculture 1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global good without compromising global and national food security. Country and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss and damage. 2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries. Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained from external sources on account of compensation should go to the government account with the condition that this would be utilized for a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change related loss and damage, including related insurance premium. 3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow from the country or community receiving such insurance covers. 4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of L&D before entering into Paris Agreement. 5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event. 6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on LDCs and SIDS. F. Technology Transfer and Development Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well as domestic technology development. These processes should be country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports. H. Migration 1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a household response mechanism in absence of other viable opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option. Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all relevant discussions. 2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This must be the irst option for the affected country and the international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised. Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate livelihood restoration through robust adaptation. 3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational. An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with human dignity. I. Capacity Building 1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people, Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and implementation of development policies and practices. While this needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the existing ones with enhanced capacity. 2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of capacity/capability along with the national capacity. J. Finance In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there are several important issues related to inance which must receive immediate attention. These are as follows: 1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested and successful climate change resilient technologies, for adaptation and mitigation, in those countries. 2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to, and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full. 3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre and post-2020 funding arrangements. 4. Developed countries should submit information on their strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge; 5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling environments should be continued given the escalating need for inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource mobilisation efforts. 6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one from the other. These become crucial for further development of the Green Climate Fund. 7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage. Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may not be enough and private investments will be necessary. As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made, mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may be available. But wherever private funds may not be available, public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private investment must not result in climate colonialism through net outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into consideration the realised beneits of the investments. 8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be burdened further with other demands such as compensatory grants for recouping past loss and damage. 9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and transparency for the private sector to follow. We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns and our support will always be with your people. sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race, colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status; The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human dignity; And Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement; And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon them as well as the globe. We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We need to initiate stronger and proactive actions. Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is, therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS in this respect. We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to voice their concern about this reversal in commitment. Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable PREAMBLE Whereas, There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change, representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), And Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all 09 A Bangladesh Civil Society Declaration on Climate Change Negotiation 08 development. On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD seeking LDCs and SIDS. Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs, provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than 1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential. Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present. Afirmations 1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities 2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the nation can proceed unhindered. energy production, consumption, transformation and transport without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens. Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival. Survival is non-negotiable; 4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an accompanying implementation package deemed adequate; 5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be in place and be an integral part of the LBA; 6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation, adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020 ambition; 7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the priority depending on national circumstances as well as the importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without prejudice to the Convention process; 8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as leveraging more investments from the private sector; 9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential. Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic negotiations need to be undertaken; 10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to go about such national legislation process and may provide capacity-building support for the purpose. B. Shared Vision 1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas Demands A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020 ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period. No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception. Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of 1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship with global peaking. Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are as follows: 1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the lead based on CBDR&RC; 2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to their different national circumstances such as level of development, natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the means of implementation (inance, technology development and transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also be an integral element of the LBA. 3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to D. Adaptation 1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional and capacity-building support; 2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far. Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be obvious now and will require smart planning, design and implementation process for which capacity of the countries including inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for technology development would have to be supported. 3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only the lower bound of the costs of adaptation. 4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a multi-stage process and required international support has to be tailored and monitored accordingly. E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts. While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we make the following points: 1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than 2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be different for developing countries based upon full realization of the principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990 baseline; 2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all aspects of global and national management of climate change in particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones (subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in global capability scale. C. Mitigation 1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by 2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as individual nations as well as a group. A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020 target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly. 2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020. community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D capacity in countries. 1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race, ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS. 2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training, development and diffusion. 3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly in case of adaptation in similar environment. 4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies, recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard, the very long term nature of climate change impact and the consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other multilateral arrangements. 5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs. G. Agriculture 1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global good without compromising global and national food security. Country and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss and damage. 2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries. Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained from external sources on account of compensation should go to the government account with the condition that this would be utilized for a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change related loss and damage, including related insurance premium. 3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow from the country or community receiving such insurance covers. 4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of L&D before entering into Paris Agreement. 5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event. 6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on LDCs and SIDS. F. Technology Transfer and Development Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well as domestic technology development. These processes should be country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports. H. Migration 1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a household response mechanism in absence of other viable opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option. Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all relevant discussions. 2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This must be the irst option for the affected country and the international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised. Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate livelihood restoration through robust adaptation. 3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational. An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with human dignity. I. Capacity Building 1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people, Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and implementation of development policies and practices. While this needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the existing ones with enhanced capacity. 2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of capacity/capability along with the national capacity. J. Finance In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there are several important issues related to inance which must receive immediate attention. These are as follows: 1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested and successful climate change resilient technologies, for adaptation and mitigation, in those countries. 2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to, and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full. 3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre and post-2020 funding arrangements. 4. Developed countries should submit information on their strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge; 5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling environments should be continued given the escalating need for inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource mobilisation efforts. 6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one from the other. These become crucial for further development of the Green Climate Fund. 7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage. Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may not be enough and private investments will be necessary. As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made, mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may be available. But wherever private funds may not be available, public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private investment must not result in climate colonialism through net outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into consideration the realised beneits of the investments. 8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be burdened further with other demands such as compensatory grants for recouping past loss and damage. 9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and transparency for the private sector to follow. We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns and our support will always be with your people. sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race, colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status; The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human dignity; And Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement; And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon them as well as the globe. We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We need to initiate stronger and proactive actions. Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is, therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS in this respect. We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to voice their concern about this reversal in commitment. Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable PREAMBLE Whereas, There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change, representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), And Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all 11 A Bangladesh Civil Society Declaration on Climate Change Negotiation 10 CSRL Secretariat: House 4, Road 3, Block I, Banani, Dhaka 1213, Bangladesh Phone : +880 2 8813607-9, 8824440 Fax : +880 2 8817402 Web: www.csrlbd.org development. On the other hand, however, a right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Two recent events are of relevance here. One is the Majuro Declaration by which the small Paciic island countries (members of SIDS) have vowed to take a low carbon development (LCD) path very seriously and thus have thrown a challenge to the big emitters, whether developed or developing. It may be gratifying here to note that Bangladesh among the LDCs was the irst country to pledge itself since 2008 to LCD path and in her own way contribute to the war on climate change. The SIDS and LDCs committing to LCD pathways will do so without exhausting the atmospheric space endowed by their past, present and future citizens and their aspirations should not be undermined by the advanced economies and atmospheric encroachers. Those Parties who have been and are continuously invading into atmospheric space must vacate the encroached spaces in order to make room for the LCD seeking LDCs and SIDS. Second, the Working Group I of the IPCC has released its Summary for Policy Makers on the 27th of September 2013 which shows that the low end of future warming by 2100 is likely to be around 1.5 degrees Celsius. This means that limiting the global scale warming to 1.5C is still possible, as it has been repeatedly demanded by the LDCs, provided all the Parties take actions to lower emission sooner than later. We believe that the CBDR&RC Principle is the key here which needs to be realized in its full potential. We therefore urge the LDCs and SIDS to draw the attention of the global community to the provisions in the Copenhagen Accord (which most Parties have acceded to) on the review by 2017 of the feasibility of lowering green house gas emission for limiting warming potential to no more than 1.5C and call upon the UNFCCC process of Review and LBA to internalise the scientiic feasibility of such limits of warming potential. Against such a backdrop, we call upon the world community to make their joint and individual commitment (without any free rider) on limiting emission on scientiic, moral and ethical grounds in addition to a legally binding and enforceable agreement and for making the planet equally or better habitable for future generations as for the present. Afirmations 1. We the civil society of Bangladesh reemphasize that global responses to climate change are based on the principle of equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities 2. We reiterate that the authority of the UNFCCC is the legitimate forum for global climate change negotiations and call upon the nations to act together focusing on countries that are most vulnerable to climate change. We call upon the Parties to ensure that the voices of the people of LDCs and SIDS are fully relected in the negotiation outcomes in order to ensure that the survival and sustainable development of the nation can proceed unhindered. energy production, consumption, transformation and transport without sacriicing necessary energy services for their citizens. Right to pollution as demanded by some Parties in the name of sustainable development can not be an excuse for continued wastage and ineficiency and avoidable emission of GHGs. Right to Growth is desirable only when it does not undermine survival. Survival is non-negotiable; 4. The post-2020 regime must address both mitigation and adaptation in a balanced manner with a view to realising the long term objective of the Convention while the goal of adaptation is to be realized under an accompanying implementation package deemed adequate; 5. In order to capture the changing circumstances in a predictable manner, an effective and robust mechanism for periodic review and course correction regarding all elements of Bali Action Plan should be in place and be an integral part of the LBA; 6. An appropriate implementation mechanism should be in place for aligning pre and post-2020 ambitions (of all elements, viz., mitigation, adaptation, inance, technology transfer and capacity building) into a seamless whole for achieving the conditions to allow greater pre-2020 ambition; 7. Low-hanging mitigation potentials are to be emphasized as the priority depending on national circumstances as well as the importance of supplementary initiatives outside the UNFCCC without prejudice to the Convention process; 8. All developed countries must provide their fair share of climate inance for the speciic mitigation actions initiated by the developing countries with the major contributions of public inance as well as leveraging more investments from the private sector; 9. Political decision for an ambitious pre-2020 ambition is essential. Therefore, ministerial engagement on pre-2020 ambition would be a requisite at COP 19 and at the upcoming summit called by the UN Secretary General. For this reason, immediate contacts and diplomatic negotiations need to be undertaken; 10. Countries may need to take legal measures of their own in line with the post-LBA world. The UNFCCC may prepare a guideline on how to go about such national legislation process and may provide capacity-building support for the purpose. B. Shared Vision 1. We call upon on all Parties to the UNFCCC to act with utmost urgency and resolve to ensure long-term stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at levels that can ensure that the global average temperature by 2100 does not exceed 1.5C above the pre-industrial level and that the path of global greenhouse gas Demands A. A Legally Binding Agreement under ADP After closure of the negotiations under AWG-LCA and AWG-KP, the negotiations under UNFCCC are now mainly centred around a new Legally Binding Agreement (LBA) to be adopted in 2015 by COP21 and be operational from 2020 onwards. But as it happened the issue of pre-2020 ambition has also come up for discussion as the post-2020 ambition has to build up on the pre-2020 global GHG emission reduction efforts. Furthermore, it is the level and pathway of emission that will determine the long term adaptation needs for the future and thus the implications for inancial and technological supports, their levels and architecture, both for the pre and the post-2020 period. No country should be given any liberty to unilaterally secede from the said LBA, right to which should be severely restricted as the legal impositions created under the UN Charter for the Security Council. Since climate change is certain to bring deaths and destructions, food insecurity and social tension, non-compliance to the said LBA should be legally treated as war on global community and threat to peace as treated under the UN Charter. There shall not be any exception. Such an LBA should consider several issues that have come up for discussion and subsequent COP decisions including global peaking with national ones varying depending on CBDR&RC, the feasibility of 1.5C potential warming by 2100, at least 45% reduction by 2020 and by 95% reduction by 2050 by Annex 1 country Parties and their consequent implications for time-path of emission and its relationship with global peaking. Against such perspectives, several points need to be stressed. These are as follows: 1. All countries must contribute to raising ambition with required support, but Annex 1 and other developed countries must take the lead based on CBDR&RC; 2. To ensure that countries have lexibility to act in a way that is suited to their different national circumstances such as level of development, natural resource endowments, access to international markets etc and appreciating that these circumstances will change over time, the means of implementation (inance, technology development and transfer as well as capacity-building) available to support countries that need them will have to be tailored accordingly. The commensurate pre and post-2020 inancial architecture should also be an integral element of the LBA. 3. Developing countries, particularly those who are in a position to do so, should contribute to the fullest extent possible on the basis of CBDR&RC while adhering to their rights to sustainable development which also implies reduction of wastage of resources as well as eradication of ineficiency, particularly those related to D. Adaptation 1. Adaptation issues are site speciic and the related action to deal with those issues should be country driven to be led by the affected communities, within the framework of global treaty. Therefore, the tools for adaptation should be suited to the issues at hand determined by the communities facing the problem to achieve effective and desired results with adequate inancing, technology and institutional and capacity-building support; 2. The climate change will be a long-drawn phenomenon and its impact will in all probability be even longer lasting than thought so far. Consequently, the adaptation activities should be progressively designed to cope with future adverse situations which may not be obvious now and will require smart planning, design and implementation process for which capacity of the countries including inance need to be enhanced while there would be concomitant need for new technology which have to be invented for which capacity for technology development would have to be supported. 3. Adaptation needs to be deined as a long term successive action. The present notion of incremental cost may thus lose its practical relevance except in cases where investment has to be for a single period. Estimation of costs of adaptation thus has to be conceptualised differently. Incremental costs estimated currently may provide only the lower bound of the costs of adaptation. 4. Communities are to be suficiently empowered legally, institutionally and inancially with appropriate technical backstopping to take decisions and actions at the local level. This will help capturing experience, practices and knowledge of the related communities on adaptation. The channel of support for adaptation may therefore be a multi-stage process and required international support has to be tailored and monitored accordingly. E. Loss and Damage and An International Compensatory Mechanism Vulnerabilities to the adverse effects of climate change can no longer be avoided through mitigation now nor can be completely made good through adaptation. We view 'loss and damage' broadly within the entire range of damage and loss associated with climate change impacts. While every effort should be made for quantiication and valuation of loss and damage, it is important to keep in mind that not all loss and damage can be quantiied or valued properly or in cases not at all. In any case, given the still unfolding nature of concept and empirics of loss and damage as well as operational mechanisms to reduce their risks, we make the following points: 1. Risk reduction does not entirely eliminate loss and damage, it may be lowered perhaps and that only for the future vulnerabilities. Risk reduction does not apply to past loss and damage. The only way to recoup past loss and damage is through a compensation mechanism emissions must globally peak as early as possible but no later than 2020 and continue to fall thereafter with its time path as determined by science. Each Annex-1 Party must comply with a 2020 peaking of GHG emission. Provided the global peaking and subsequent lowering is observed, the national-level emission reduction path may be different for developing countries based upon full realization of the principle of CBDR&RC. Developing countries and LDCs & SIDS may have more lexible national peaking years provided again the global peak occurs no later than 2020. The intended LBA to come into effect from 2020 must incorporate these principles. We further reiterate that by 2050 emission must be reduced by at least 95% of the 1990 baseline; 2. Full appreciation of CBDR&RC principle must be the bedrock for all aspects of global and national management of climate change in particular mitigation, provision of inance, technology transfer, and compensating for loss and damage. We demand that countries strive to accept not simply historical responsibility but also the current ones (subject to the need for the right to sustainable development, adhering to the CBDR&RC Principle) and those who are in a position to do so shall share fully in raising the capability of those down the ladder in global capability scale. C. Mitigation 1. In line with the principles of CBDR&RC, and the need for urgent action that science demands, Annex 1 Parties can realistically reduce their emissions by at least 45% in aggregate against the 1990 baseline levels by 2020 and by 95% by 2050 subject to the provision that the aggregate global emission is commensurate with the 1.5C goal by 2100. They must take immediate and urgent actions in this regard as individual nations as well as a group. A few countries or groups such as the EU has already fulilled its 2020 target by this year i.e., 7 years early which provides for the evidence that the ambition had been too low. Much ambitious emission reduction targets and subsequent actions could have been considered, as has been encouraged by the IPCC. Such countries and groups should be encouraged to raise their ambition further for their pre-2020 ambition and thus also jack up the post-2020 ambition and make early pledges accordingly. 2. We also urge the advanced developing countries to initiate necessary actions on mitigation based on their responsibilities and respective capabilities. If some of the LDCs and SIDS can adopt Low Carbon Development pathways, despite their utmost needs for immediate sustainable development efforts, the advanced developing countries should not have hesitation to rely on their respective higher capabilities and take part in a global emission reduction effort. They have to do so anyway, as per Durban Agreement, starting 2020. community level. These activities should go beyond awareness raising and emphasise action on the ground and develop commensurate R&D capacity in countries. 1. Efforts must be made to ensure that technology development and transfer does not unnecessarily create new and/or aggravate prevailing technology divide based on gender (or sex), age, race, ethnicity, culture and language. Technology should not be a tool to further exploit climate vulnerable poor people in the LDCs and SIDS. 2. Annex 1 Parties must provide adequate support for socially acceptable and gender-sensitive technology research, training, development and diffusion. 3. South-South cooperation in technology transfer and learning from each other should be emphasised as cheaper alternative particularly in case of adaptation in similar environment. 4. While Intellectual Property Right must not in general hinder the access to necessary adaptation and mitigation technologies, recognizing poor technological capabilities of LDCs, they should get preferential treatment in line with other such multilateral agreements such as those under WTO and WIPO. The international IPR regime has to be revised, if needed, to facilitate this requirement. In this regard, the very long term nature of climate change impact and the consequent adaptation should also mean similar long term arrangements for transfer/acquisition of IPR much beyond other multilateral arrangements. 5. Financial resource assessment for required technology for adaptation and mitigation needs to be done expeditiously in a transparent manner for international veriication. While Parties should be ready with both technology needs assessment as well as its inancial and capacity-building counterparts, detailed training and guideline needs to be developed on this by SBSTA. COP must make clear decision on how SBSTA may be given the mandate to meet such needs. G. Agriculture 1. The issue of agriculture still remains to be settled in the global negotiation process. True, agriculture is vital for food security and no country would wish to rock its agricultural system in the short run particularly as adaptation and mitigation are often intertwined and there may be both synergy and trade-off between the two. Such synergies and trade-offs need to be properly and scientiically investigated and their cultural, social and economic acceptability assessed. We call upon the Parties to instruct SBSTA through a COP decision to examine these synergies and trade-offs in various agricultural systems so that Parties may decide for themselves to what extent they may try to reform their agricultural system for the global good without compromising global and national food security. Country and a fair one including costs of the foregone opportunities due to the loss and damage. We therefore demand compensation for past loss and damage. 2. Insurance is not the only one mechanism to reduce risk and consequent loss. Even where this is applicable, we strongly declare that the burden of premium of any insurance must NOT be collected from any member of vulnerable communities and affected countries. Rather, collection of premium must be based on polluters pay principle and to be paid for on the basis of historical responsibility as well as current emission (subject to the right to sustainable development) by countries who are responsible. Innovative interventions, such as compensation via inancing safety net schemes may be considered as an operational option. Thus, the funds obtained from external sources on account of compensation should go to the government account with the condition that this would be utilized for a suitable social protection mechanism to cover climate change related loss and damage, including related insurance premium. 3. The insurance schemes must not lead to any net resource outlow from the country or community receiving such insurance covers. 4. Immediate programmes should be undertaken in the most vulnerable countries for proper and internationally comparable estimates of past loss and damage by sector as well as estimating risks and identifying risk factors for probable future loss and damage. Guidelines for such estimates should be prepared by the SBI/SBSTA. Such estimate will guide the preventive investments needs by sector for lowering future loss and damage. A COP decision may be sought so that SBSTA may come out with a speciic work programme with a reporting deadline of mid-2015 SBSTA meeting so that COP21 is aware of the importance of L&D before entering into Paris Agreement. 5. A rough and ready method may be developed by SBI/SBSTA for immediate assessment of loss and damage for speedy release of initial funds for rehabilitation after an adverse climatic event. 6. Recognizing that GCF is already appearing grossly inadequate and inancing gap is increasing by days with ever increasing Gigaton gap in the atmosphere, a special Loss and Damage Fund needs to be created immediately outside the GCF for supporting grants for recouping past loss and damage, payments of premium for insurance cover wherever so necessary and also other supporting expenditures, with a focus on LDCs and SIDS. F. Technology Transfer and Development Technology needs assessments, technology road maps and technology action plans are effective tools for enhancing technology transfer as well as domestic technology development. These processes should be country-driven and adequately inanced at international as well as national level to build their capacities widely that will include action at Parties may be speciically encouraged to report such possibilities in their National Communications and Biennial Updating Reports. H. Migration 1. The current state of vulnerability often makes migration as a household response mechanism in absence of other viable opportunities. Migration therefore should not be considered as the preferred option, rather the last response in absence of a viable option. Therefore, there is no room to align climate induced forced displacement with millennia old opportunistic migration. Labour migration should NOT therefore be discussed under migration related negotiation. Forced displacement by the adverse implications of climate change, mostly in LDCs and SIDS, must be treated compassionately and human dignity must be placed at the centre of all relevant discussions. 2. The critical question in this discourse is how to create the viable alternatives for livelihood, employment and economic and social well-being of vulnerable women and men in LDCs and SIDS. This must be the irst option for the affected country and the international community. All help, inancial, technical, legal and otherwise must be provided for such option to be exercised. Failing this, the advanced developed countries must be ready to relocate the climate change displaced persons in their own countries. We request LDCs and SIDS to place their irm demand to COP towards creating a special fund for countries to facilitate livelihood restoration through robust adaptation. 3. If the second option is accepted instead by the Annex 1 emitters, we demand to LDCs and SIDS to request COP towards creating an appropriate International Mechanism for the whole process of dealing with forced climate migrants to be scrutinised and made operational. An international system must pave the way for their relocation, with human dignity. I. Capacity Building 1. For building climate resilience for enhanced well-being of people, Climate Change must be mainstreamed in planning, designing and implementation of development policies and practices. While this needs to be a national effort it must be complemented with adequate resource low through the UNFCCC process for short and long term capacity building initiatives including education following the Nairobi Plan of Action by creation of new institutions, and reforming the existing ones with enhanced capacity. 2. We trust that the LDCs and SIDS will review sector-wise potential and capacity in respective countries and initiate activities immediately for capacity building of ministries and agencies which will develop projects integrating the Climate Change issue. We also emphasise engagement of an international mechanism on assessment of capacity/capability along with the national capacity. J. Finance In view of the urgency of action in achieving the mitigation and adaptation gaps implied and pointed out by science most recently through the SPM of AR5 of WG I of the IPCC, lack of or limited inance must not stand on the way of taking such actions. Based on this, there are several important issues related to inance which must receive immediate attention. These are as follows: 1. The low of inance to developing countries, particularly LDCs and SIDS has to be ensured to facilitate implementation of tested and successful climate change resilient technologies, for adaptation and mitigation, in those countries. 2. Climate inance to developing countries must be additional to, and distinct from, ODA targets of 0.7% of GNI. Apportionment of the inancing of Green Climate Fund must be based on the appreciation of CBDR&RC principle in full. 3. Previous decisions in inance and commitments made during the deliberations under LCA must not be lost sight of while other countries may be encouraged to make their own pledges particularly against the backdrop of the upcoming LBA and pre and post-2020 funding arrangements. 4. Developed countries should submit information on their strategies to scale up climate inance and actual support provided while reiterating the previous decisions on inance under the LCA as the minimum of necessary pledge; 5. The work programme on long term inance in 2013, focusing on pathways to scale up the mobilization of resources and enabling environments should be continued given the escalating need for inancial resources, The Standing Committee on Finance should prepare its irst biennial assessment and overview of inancial lows and indicate the inancing gap to guide future resource mobilisation efforts. 6. We strongly urge the global negotiation to clarify the architecture of pre-2020 and post-2020 inancial mechanisms of all Convention-mediated funds and fund mobilisation into the LBA and examine as soon as possible the relationship between the pre and post-2020 structures for a smooth transition of one from the other. These become crucial for further development of the Green Climate Fund. 7. The need of inance for mitigation, adaptation, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building will be huge and the promised US$100 bn per year by 2020 is not enough in relation to the need. Grant-based public inding has to mainly support adaptation as well as recouping part of loss and damage. Mitigation may also be in need of public funding. But all these may not be enough and private investments will be necessary. As private funds may low only if there is a proit to be made, mitigation in general is the major area where private funds may be available. But wherever private funds may not be available, public funding must ill in the gap in inancing needs. Also private investment must not result in climate colonialism through net outlow of resources from recipient countries taking into consideration the realised beneits of the investments. 8. As the GCFs intended size is inadequate compared to the demand on its potential resources, the present GCF should not be burdened further with other demands such as compensatory grants for recouping past loss and damage. 9. There must be appropriate international regulatory, monitoring and evaluation mechanisms including MRV for both public and private inancial lows. Furthermore, the international regulatory mechanism should follow fair and transparent accreditation principles and put in place clear and proper guidelines related to economic, social, cultural, legal and environmental standards and transparency for the private sector to follow. We the Bangladeshi Civil Society Organizations wish you all a successful engagement in negotiation in COP19, satisfactory outcomes of the negotiation towards building blocks for a successful and effective LBA to be signed in 2015. We stand behind your causes and concerns and our support will always be with your people. sectors of human activities and consequently frustrate those countries development processes including reduction of poverty and attainment of improved living conditions of their citizens irrespective of sex, race, colour, ethnic as well as cultural identities and indigenous status; The disruption and in cases reversal of the present development process in turn will increase peoples misery to the utmost including death from natural disasters and widespread hunger and also tell upon human dignity; And Inadequate resources, comparatively weaker technological base, and limited institutional and human capacity make it dificult for many developing countries, LDCs and SIDS to pursue even a reasonably acceptable path of sustainable socio-economic advancement; And all these despite such countries, in particular the LDCs and SIDS having negligible historic role in bringing about this apocalypse upon them as well as the globe. We, the civil society of Bangladesh, irmly believe that the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR & RC) enshrined in the Convention must remain the cornerstone of any global plan of action for facing climate change. Despite the central role of the principle, its implications for action across countries as relected in tangible outcomes of climate change negotiation has not so far been much noticeable. There is therefore no room for complacency and that for the citizens of LDCs and SIDS inaction is not an option. We need to initiate stronger and proactive actions. Our concerns and voice will become more audible and convincing when these are shared by common interest groups of countries. At the same time, as past experiences show, there is a distinct possibility that our speciic interest might be compromised to the more general interest of the developing countries group we subscribe to. It is, therefore, imperative that we take a uniied but distinctly independent stand on issues that may compromise our development aspirations more than others and go against the tide, if necessary, to protect our collective interest. The Civil Society of Bangladesh pledges that it will stand with the positions and actions considered by the LDCs and SIDS in this respect. We are extremely concerned that some of the Annex 1 countries have recently opted out of commitments on reduction of greenhouse gas emission, under one pretext or other, thereby frustrating the hope of united global mitigation efforts. Liberty to secede unilaterally from an agreed upon outcome of a multi-laterally negotiated Protocol (such as the Kyoto Protocol) at any given time and disregarding the minimum global responsibility towards safeguarding future of the planet and its inhabitants made a cruel mockery in the face of an imminent catastrophe! We strongly feel that LDCs and SIDS should continue to voice their concern about this reversal in commitment. Every country, we strongly believe, has the right to sustainable Disclaimer: This publication has been produced with the inancial aid of European Union and Oxfam. The views expressed herein should not be taken in any way to relect the oficial opinion of the European Union or Oxfam. Collaboration with Tis project is implemented by Oxfam and Oxfam led alliance CSRL Photo courtesy Oxfam Date of Publication November 2013 PREAMBLE Whereas, There are countries which are amongst the most vulnerable and likely to suffer disproportionately due to adverse impacts of climate change, representing mostly the Least Developed Countries (LDC) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), And Despite being at the lower end in emission ranking, the stresses and adverse impacts of Climate Change on various natural systems that directly and indirectly sustain life on earth and thus cut across all