Linkages home
CIF Partnership Forum Bulletin
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
A Summary Report of the 2011 Climate Investment Funds Partnership Forum
Download PDF version
French version
Spanish version
Back to IISD coverage
Volume 172 Number 4 - Tuesday, 28 June 2011
SUMMARY OF THE 2011 CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS PARTNERSHIP FORUM
24-25 JUNE 2011

The 2011 Climate Investment Funds (CIF) Partnership Forum took place from 24-25 June 2011 in Cape Town, South Africa. The Forum was organized by the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the World Bank, in collaboration with other multilateral development bank (MDB) partners. It brought together approximately 450 participants, including representatives of governments, non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations, United Nations agencies, indigenous peoples and the private sector.

The aim of the 2011 Partnership Forum was to provide an opportunity for CIF stakeholders to: share their experiences of how the CIF are working in their countries; exchange lessons learned about what is most effective and discuss how the CIF can be expanded or improved; share on-the-ground achievements, challenges and knowledge; and help other CIF stakeholders apply lessons learned. The Forum also aimed to: raise awareness of the CIF and the country selection process; provide feedback to the CIF governing bodies; and identify opportunities for further stakeholder participation.

The Forum included: plenary sessions featuring stakeholder perspectives, experiences and reflections on CIF strategic directions, results and impacts; and panel discussions on ways to maximize the CIF’s impact at the country and sectoral levels. In addition, participants convened in a civil society organization (CSO) panel and eight breakout sessions on issues related to: private sector engagement in adaptation; climate-smart mobility; promoting clean technology manufacturing; innovative partnerships; climate modeling; financing transformation; wind energy; and working as partners at the country level. Participants also heard messages from pilot country meetings and presentations on lessons learned. A learning symposium on the latest developments in climate science was held, as well as a poster session showcasing evolving CIF programs and projects in the CIF 45 pilot countries. The Forum was preceded by meetings of the: pilot countries of the Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program in Low Income Countries (SREP), Forest Investment Program (FIP) and Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR); Clean Technology Fund (CTF) countries; SREP Sub-Committee; CTF Trust Fund Committee; and Strategic Climate Fund (SCF) Sub-Committee. In addition, CSO consultations for observer constituencies convened prior to the Forum. 

This report provides a brief history of the CIF and summarizes discussions during the 2011 Partnership Forum.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CLIMATE INVESTMENT FUNDS

Climate change is considered to be one of the most serious threats to sustainable development, with adverse impacts expected on the environment, human health, food security, economic activity, natural resources and physical infrastructure. It is expected to disproportionately affect developing countries, especially the poor, thus making climate change a central consideration in poverty reduction and development efforts. Recognizing this, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change acknowledges the need to provide additional financial resources to developing countries in order to help them mitigate and manage the challenges posed by climate change. It was in this context that the CIF were established.

The CIF, formally approved by the World Bank’s Board of Directors on 1 July 2008, are a collaborative effort among the MDBs and countries to bridge the financing and knowledge gap between now and a post-2012 global climate change agreement. The CIF were designed through consultations with various stakeholders and are governed by a balanced representation of donors and recipient countries, with active observers from the UN, the Global Environment Facility, civil society, indigenous peoples and the private sector.

The CIF are comprised of two Funds, each with its own specific scope, objective and governance structure: the CTF; and the SCF. The CTF provides scaled-up financing for the demonstration, deployment and transfer of low-carbon technologies that have the potential to achieve long-term greenhouse gas emission reductions. Among other things, it funds low-carbon programs and projects that are contained in countries’ national plans and strategies. The SCF supports developing country efforts to achieve climate-resilient, low-carbon development. It operates through targeted programs with dedicated funding to pilot new approaches to climate action that have the potential to achieve scaled-up, transformational action. Each of the target programs is aimed at a specific climate change challenge or sectoral response. The three targeted programs under the SCF are: the PPCR, which helps countries mainstream climate resilience into development planning; the FIP, which aims, inter alia, to support efforts to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation by financing efforts to address the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, and to promote sustainable forest management; and the SREP, which aims to help low income countries exploit their renewable energy potential and move towards low-carbon energy paths.

So far, donor countries have pledged US$6.5 billion to the CIF, to be disbursed as grants, highly concessional loans and/or risk mitigation instruments, and administered, through country-led programs and investments, by the AfDB, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the International Finance Corporation and the World Bank. 45 developing countries are currently taking climate action with the support of the CIF.

The CIF Partnership Forum was introduced as a central element of the CIF process to help ensure effective lesson sharing and the full engagement of all stakeholders in the CIF process in an inclusive, transparent and strategic manner. In October 2008, an initial CIF Partnership Forum was held at World Bank Headquarters in Washington, DC, to begin the Forum process, as the structure of the CIF was still being formed and refined. This first Forum provided, among other things, an early opportunity to explore how best to promote dialogue and open exchange on various aspects of the CIF and set the stage for convening the Forum on a regular basis.

The 2010 CIF Partnership Forum, held from 18-19 March 2010, at ADB Headquarters in Manila, the Philippines, aimed to provide an open, transparent and constructive platform for all stakeholders to reflect on the first year of the CIF’s operations, share their experiences and knowledge gained, and extract useful lessons learned to inform the further implementation of the CIF. It also aimed to share lessons learned from the CIF design process and early implementation of CIF-funded programs, in particular, from country-level activities of the CTF and the PPCR, which had both advanced to the implementation stage.

REPORT OF THE FORUM

OPENING PLENARY

OPENING REMARKS: The 2011 Climate Investment Funds (CIF) Partnership Forum opened on Friday morning, 24 June. Tumi Makgabo, Africa Worldwide Media, moderated the session. Bobby Pittman, Vice-President, African Development Bank (AfDB), reading a message on behalf of AfDB President Donald Kaberuka, emphasized the AfDB’s work in sustainable forest management and energy access, and stressed: accessing climate finance to meet Africa’s needs; and providing incentives to the private sector to leverage investment.

In his keynote address, Pravin Gordhan, Minister of Finance, South Africa, emphasized that traditional paradigms of funding and aid need to be transformed, and the development trajectory reformulated, stressing that “we must break the shackles” of current ways of thinking and doing when dealing with climate change. He said the CIF are a pioneer in this respect and expressed hope that the Forum would contribute to a successful session of the 17th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 17) in Durban later this year.

ELECTION OF PARTNERSHIP FORUM CO-CHAIRS: Renosi Mokate, South African representative to the World Bank Board of Executive Directors, and SCF Co-Chair Andrew Steer, World Bank, were elected Partnership Forum Co-Chairs. Mokate urged stakeholders and delegates to engage in dialogue that would result in constructive outcomes. Steer outlined the history of the CIF and called for the swift operationalization of the Green Climate Fund under the UNFCCC, noting that it can learn much from the CIF, which is a “living lab.”

MESSAGES FROM PILOT COUNTRY MEETINGS: Forest Investment Program (FIP): Victor Kabengele, Democratic Republic of the Congo, noted that the FIP has identified challenges facing pilot countries including: creating and supporting national priorities; moving beyond social and cultural challenges; and identifying ways to increase private sector involvement.

Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR): David Kaluba, Zambia, said the complexity of programs under the PPCR makes coordination across institutions and government ministries a challenge. He underscored the importance of civil society involvement in program development, in order to provide a platform for communities to learn from the programs, and noted that, in Zambia, private sector involvement is a largely untapped resource.

Clean Technology Fund (CTF): Raúl Delgado, Mexico, called for strong leadership and civil society involvement in the program planning stage, and for minimizing perceived risks, in order to increase private sector involvement. He underscored the challenge of allocating funds to climate change initiatives in countries where poverty alleviation is the main priority. Delgado added that there is a need for more resources from the private sector because of limited national and multilateral funds.

Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program in Low Income Countries (SREP): Narayan Prasad Chaulagain, Nepal, outlined challenges such as using clean technologies for the provision of basic energy and electricity services, while trying to limit costs to ensure affordability. He highlighted the need to mainstream the SREP into countries’ national development agendas, stating this was a challenge, as developing countries have numerous poverty-related initiatives, which are given priority.

In the subsequent discussion, participants highlighted issues, including: aid effectiveness; limited awareness of climate change; lack of greenhouse gas accounting systems; and lack of synchrony between civil society and government actions. On participation, Kabengele emphasized: improving engagement with all relevant stakeholders, particularly civil society and local and indigenous communities; ensuring political commitment to help take the process forward; and coordinating initiatives in order to avoid overlaps. Kaluba stressed that the private sector needs to understand the impacts climate change will have on it, because the trend is for the private sector to take a short-term view. Prasad Chaulagain observed that technology development has to be driven by demand and take a bottom-up approach.

In closing, panelists highlighted a number of key lessons, including: addressing local issues; communicating the right message and perspective; involving the right ministries; ensuring country ownership; mainstreaming climate change into development plans; enabling participation by all stakeholders, including women; establishing the appropriate business environment for co-financing; encouraging and enabling networking and communication among all stakeholders; and building human and technological capacity.

EMERGING LESSONS: CTF Programming: Robin Broadfield, Consultant, said the CTF has endorsed 14 investment plans involving 17 countries and has pledged US$4.35 billion for these plans. He outlined lessons learned, including: continued country leadership; transformation of relevant sectors; inter-stakeholder partnerships; and increased private sector involvement. Going forward, he called for sustaining leadership and setting market transformation activities and targets.

Elvan Ongun, Turkey, spoke on Turkey’s experiences, explaining that the CTF was a catalyst for eliminating funding and early adopter barriers to clean energy programs, and for fostering unique partnerships between the private sector and the MDBs. Delgado underlined efforts in Mexico to coordinate measures across ministries and national programs, making it easier to channel resources towards initiatives.

PPCR Programming: Erik Reed, PPCR Consultant, shared lessons on the PPCR programming phase, observing that the PPCR is the only CIF program focusing on adaptation. He highlighted lessons learned, including the need for: country leadership with realistic expectations; unique partnerships, with MDBs working closely together; private sector engagement; and leveraging the comparative advantage and resources of partners.

Laverne Walker, Saint Lucia, and Dan-Bakoye Chaibou, Niger, provided overviews of the PPCR process in their respective countries. Walker noted that: local consultants were engaged in order to build capacity and because of their local knowledge; and civil society was engaged from the beginning. Chaibou described the process of deciding who would take ownership of the PPCR process, noting that Niger’s Ministry of Finance would take ownership in consultation with other ministries. He noted private sector involvement in the provision of irrigation systems to farmers affected by climate change.

In the ensuing discussion, participants highlighted: ensuring local community involvement in the design and development of projects and plans to ensure sustainability; enhancing private sector and civil society engagement; and using MDBs to build local capacity and encourage investment.

Governance Panel: On the effectiveness of the equitable governance structure of the CIF, Jan Sheltinga, Canada, said that the committees are functioning well, according to their mandates, with equal representation of donor and recipient countries. Ahmed Moosa, Maldives, commended the effective and speedy governance structure of the CIF.

On linkages between the CIF and long-term financing arrangements, Steer highlighted the administrative strength and effectiveness of the CIF secretariat, and suggested that the CIF could be used as a template for the Green Climate Fund.

On policy measures to reduce overall atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, Moosa said the CIF serve as a platform for developing countries to develop climate policies. On ensuring knowledge transfers between countries’ CIF representatives, Moosa and Steer recommended developing capacity and leadership at the state level, and underscored the need to find additional resources to help meet mitigation targets.

Expert Group Panel: The panel shared experiences of selecting recipient countries to receive financing under the PPCR. Daniel Riley, US, emphasized that the selection process must be legitimate and use appropriate criteria. Rolf Zelius, Consultant, stressed improving the assessment of pilot country motivation and the ability to deliver results.

Responding to the challenges faced by the Expert Group, Richenda Van Leeuwen, UN Foundation, explained that the Group’s mandate was limited to evaluating countries and not specific transactions and projects.

BREAKOUT SESSIONS

TAPPING GROWTH POTENTIAL IN CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH INNOVATIVE PARTNERSHIPS: On Friday afternoon, Jamal Saghir, World Bank, moderated this session. Christopher Clarke, Advisor to the Evolution One Cleantech Fund, South Africa, noted that investment in emerging areas, such as climate change, involves higher risk than investment in more traditional areas, and said the Fund is one of the first dedicated to clean technology investment.

Mohammedi Allach, Office National de l’Electricité, Morocco, discussed electricity generation in Morocco, explaining that to help meet demand, his office turned to public-private partnerships (PPPs), which cover 50% of energy projects. He said the next phase is to mobilize hydroelectric, solar and wind power potential in Morocco.

José Salazar, SUNASS, Peru, discussed private sector participation and investment in providing access to drinking water in Peru, noting Peru’s attractiveness to investors and the aim of cleaner economic growth and social equity.

Mark Pickering, Meridian Economics, discussed South Africa’s Renewable Energy Program, which aims to increase the share of new renewable energy capacity to 42% over the next 20 years. Noting that the government has no intention of breaking the monopoly of Eskom, the electricity utility, he said that institutional reform and entry through public procurement processes are required.

Participants then discussed issues related to: the role of public subsidies and funds; the complexities of regulating PPPs; the need for in-house experts on finance, legal issues and insurance in developing PPPs; and well-constructed PPPs and their ability to enhance sustainability.

PUTTING SCIENCE TO WORK: STATE OF THE ART IN CLIMATE MODELING AND ITS ROLE IN THE CIF: On Friday afternoon, Daniel Kammen, World Bank, moderated the session on state of the art in climate modeling and its role in the CIF.

Ongoing Challenges and Latest Developments in Climate Modeling: Richard Jones, Hadley Centre, UK, presented on behalf of Neville Trotz, Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre, and highlighted climate scenarios generated to inform adaptation measures in the tourism and agriculture sectors. Jones presented on advancements in global climate models (GCMs), noting that GCMs were becoming increasingly complex and that increased information sharing on research is taking place.

Bruce Hewitson, University of Cape Town, presented on the recommended use of climate projection data for robust decision making. He identified limitations to the accuracy of downscaled GCM data and underlined challenges for regional climate models.

Francisco Doblas-Reyes, Institut Català de Ciències del Clima, Spain, presented research into short-term climate prediction and described the empirical methods being used to generate inter-seasonal and short-term climate data.

Initiatives to Develop Regional and Local Climate Projections:Joseph Daniel Intsiful, UN Development Programme (UNDP), described initiatives for climate data and climate projections, and highlighted UNDP’s involvement in the Africa Adaptation Programme and the National Communications Support Programme.

Mohammed Sadeck Boulahya, the African Centre of Meteorological Applications for Development (ACMAD), presented on the region’s efforts to generate climate projections and highlighted the Global Framework for Climate Services, which was developed to enable more effective information dissemination to inform adaptation decisions.

Discussion followed on, inter alia: methods of using GCM data to inform small regions; knowledge transfer and local cooperation for climate modeling; increased research and development spending on climate models; and the merits of rain-seeding and geo-engineering as viable strategies.

FINANCING TRANSFORMATION: This session was moderated by Hela Cheikhrouhou, AfDB, and took place on Friday afternoon.

Programmatic Approach to Financing Transformation: Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, Conservation International, presented on the environmental payment program in Costa Rica, explaining that environmental services generated by nature should be accounted for. He emphasized that this program had been implemented in conjunction with the establishment of appropriate institutions and the elimination of perverse incentives.

Naoko Ishii, Japan, discussed scaling up low-emissions development. She highlighted the potential role of the CIF in assisting countries during a “readiness” phase, to prepare them to receive funds from the Green Climate Fund once it is operationalized.

Finance for the Poor and Underserved: Mustafa Hussain, World Bank, presented on service delivery to the poor, in which output-based aid links the payment of aid to the delivery of specific services or outputs. He explained that under this scheme, service delivery is usually contracted out to a private firm, which receives a subsidy, and which is responsible for pre-financing the project until output delivery. Hussain explained that the subsidy is performance-based and verified by an independent agent.

Japhet Aritho, Safaricom, discussed transformation through innovation and presented lessons learned from the operation of M-PESA, a mobile phone-based money transfer service in Kenya. He explained that M-PESA is also used to pay bills and purchase goods and services.

GREENING CLEAN ENERGY SOURCES: MANAGING THE SOCIAL AND BIODIVERSITY TRADE-OFFS FOR WIND ENERGY: On Friday afternoon, Gary Allport, Birdlife International, moderated this session, highlighting that although wind energy is a clean form of energy, the negative trade-offs for biodiversity and social well-being are becoming increasingly clear. George Ledec, World Bank, said the main impacts of onshore wind power include: biodiversity impacts, such as bird collisions and bat deaths; local nuisance impacts, such as noise and visual interference; and socioeconomic and cultural impacts.

Ana Maria Sandoval Sastre, Empresas Públicas de Medellín, Colombia, outlined the construction and implementation of the Jepírachi Wind Project. She highlighted the establishment of an intercultural dialogue to identify site placement and the creation of a buffer zone around sacred places and residential areas to avoid interference with daily life.

Claudio Alatorre, Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), stressed that real development, such as the construction of schools and other social infrastructure, needs to occur in addition to monetary transfers for leasing land and labor. Edward Arnett, Bat Conservation International, said his organization is not against wind power generation, but that it should not compromise wildlife, highlighting the unforeseen consequences of bat fatalities.

Mohamad Yasser Sherif, Environics, Egypt, outlined a number of surveys to assess bird migratory patterns in Egypt. He noted that this has led to the designation of “no construction zones,” which are increasingly under pressure from wind power developers.

Aline Kühl, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), stressed that wind power has been an issue of concern for the CMS and has been on the agenda since 2002. She underscored the impact of off-shore wind farm development on the ocean due to ocean noise.

WHY ADAPTATION SHOULD BE A PRIORITY FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR: PERSPECTIVES FOR THE PPCR: This session took place on Saturday morning and was moderated by Hans Schulz, IDB, who noted that private sector adaptation efforts have, for the most part, been reactive, but that challenges faced by the private sector should also be considered as opportunities.

Keynote speaker Celine Herweijer, PricewaterhouseCoopers, noted that the private sector consists of a diverse ecosystem of actors and identified two types of private sector engagement: defensive, such as by managing risk and climate-proofing responses; and proactive, such as by leveraging finance and developing adaptation technologies. She highlighted barriers to effective action, including the tendency of the private sector to focus on the short term and the lack of fiscal incentives. On enabling the private sector to respond effectively, she discussed, inter alia: provision, by the public sector, of information to the private sector; creation of public financing mechanisms to catalyze private sector action; and engagement with the private sector when taking decisions regarding regulatory measures. Herweijer invited participants to address how the PPCR can best identify and leverage private sector engagement, and to provide relevant concrete examples in the PPCR context.

Patrick Karani, Bureau of Environmental Analysis (BEA) International, Kenya, discussed facilitating private sector investment in adaptation. Using the tea sector as an example, he noted the sector’s dependence on energy and resulting sensitivity to climate change. He called for: development of technologies that can help the private sector fast track their participation in climate resiliency; and private sector participation in designing and engineering adaptation programs. He said clear policies and fiscal incentives, such as tax breaks for adaptation actions, are necessary.

Kepa Solaun, Factor CO2, Spain, called for moving away from a negative perspective of risk, and discussed the benefits of sectoral and geographic-based approaches to adaptation. He proposed developing: business models that standardize services or products; and cross-national sector-based methodologies.

Frank Fass-Metz, Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Germany, discussed private sector engagement from a government perspective and said adaptation is “good development” and, for the private sector, “good business practice.” He highlighted Saint Lucia’s proposed climate adaptation loan facility to enable the private sector to build better climate resilience.

Vladimir Stenek, International Finance Corporation (IFC), discussed the risks to private sector investments and projects. Using the port sector as an example, he noted that ports are a strategic asset, highly sensitive to climate change and extreme events, and can stall economies if impacted. However, he said little has been done on adaptation because information is not presented appropriately for the private sector, and that risk needs to be translated into monetary terms.

During the ensuing discussion, one participant asked panelists to address: how to have an authentic and legitimate dialogue and collaboration with the private sector, and ensure that such collaboration does not distort the market; how to manage those who might be put out of business by adaptation measures; the move from innovation to replication; and the role of consumers. Herweijer said businesses collaborate when a challenge exists that they cannot address themselves, and, regarding consumers, she noted “climate smart” labeling could be integrated into existing labeling. Stenek said demand is at the heart of replication, while Herweijer stressed that demonstrating success will encourage scaling up. An IFC representative noted that the division between adaptation and mitigation in project funding is problematic, in response to which panelists stressed the importance of co-benefits.

Participants then broke out into three smaller groups to address how the private sector could benefit from undertaking climate resilience strategies, and whether this could be conducive to national development. The groups were asked to propose innovative ways in which the PPCR could be used to overcome the challenges to increasing the private sector’s engagement in adaptation.

During the reports back from the small group discussions, the following recommendations were made: establishing a climate resilience loan facility to offer concessional loans to overcome the challenge posed by the fact that most adaptation initiatives are small scale and do not benefit from the larger investments often made by the private sector; taking an integrated approach to climate compatible development, combining adaptation and mitigation, as well as poverty reduction; sending consistent market signals to businesses; educating governments on the importance of partnerships with the private sector; providing grants, not loans, for information generation; and raising private sector awareness of adaptation.

GREENING GROWING CITIES—THE CHALLENGE OF CLIMATE-SMART MOBILITY: Samuel Tumiwa, Asian Development Bank (ADB), moderated the session on Saturday morning. Jamie Leather, ADB, underlined the economic costs and effects on quality of life of the present transport system. He explained that a sustainable transport strategy consists of three components: avoiding the need to travel; shifting to more efficient modes of transport; and improving fuel and vehicle efficiency.

Stephen Granger, City of Cape Town, highlighted some of the climate change challenges facing Cape Town, noting that the high level of social inequality and sensitive ecological hotspots dictate city planning. He highlighted recent achievements in greening the city and the Climate Smart Cape Town campaign.

Maddie Mazaza, City of Cape Town, said the city was working according to a philosophy of providing sustainable mobility to all. Mazaza described the bus rapid transit system being developed as a key component of a sustainable transport system, saying poor perceptions of public transport and an aging rail system are challenges being addressed.

Frederic Oladeinde, Lagos Metropolitan Area Transport Authority (LAMATA), Nigeria, described LAMATA’s role in coordinating approximately 100 agencies responsible for various aspects of transport in Lagos. He highlighted the stakeholder consultations and education initiatives that have been carried out under the bus rapid transit system in Lagos, the first in Africa, and noted that the rapid transit system was a necessity due to the city’s explosive population growth.

Loreta Ayson, the Philippines, provided an overview of a pilot fleet of electric “trike” taxis, to be expanded to a fleet of 100,000 at a cost of US$400 million. She pointed to air pollution, fuel security and job creation as major reasons for the intervention.

Stefan Bakker, Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands, spoke on carbon finance for transport, saying that CTF funding for transport projects exceeded transport funding under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) combined. He added that nationally appropriate mitigation actions had the potential to attract funds for transport programs and policies.

In the ensuing discussion, Granger said that climate change is not just an environmental problem and must be addressed in all sectors, with all panelists agreeing that more engagement between transport departments and the climate community is needed.

LEAP INTO GREEN GROWTH: PROMOTING CLEAN TECHNOLOGY MANUFACTURING: Strategies and Opportunities for Promoting Green Growth: On Saturday morning, Daniel Kammen, World Bank, moderated this session, highlighting financial investment in clean energy in the region and the enabling market conditions and job creation.

Daniel Gizaw, dVentus Technologies, Ethiopia, gave an overview of his company, which provides full custom design for the manufacturing of wind turbine generators and controls and targets the African market. He highlighted key challenges including: market development; project financing; financing for research and development, manufacturing and marketing; the policy and regulatory framework; and bureaucracy and corruption.

Silvia Pariente-David, World Bank, presented the case of concentrated solar power (CSP) in the Middle East and North African region. She observed that a local manufacturing study had revealed the real potential in the region based on existing CSP experience, as well as the potential for local content.

Tanja Faller, AfDB, discussed clean technology manufacturing, highlighting a common misconception that direct investment will automatically lead to technology transfer. She noted the need for medium and high end jobs, rather than only jobs in construction, and observed that Africa has an opportunity to leap frog to a low-carbon green growth path.

Osvaldo Soliano Pererira, Brazilian Center of Energy and Climate Change, discussed policy and regulatory issues in Brazil, highlighting the Programme of Incentives for Alternative Electricity Sources (PROINFA), which is a two-phase program for wind, biomass and small hydropower. He also discussed a legal framework for mini-grid systems in non-supplied areas, and noted that the same subsidies awarded to diesel are being extended to renewables.

In the ensuing discussion, participants highlighted issues including: how to increase local technology capabilities; and local content as a stipulation for procurement.

Impact of Clean Technology on Growth and Social Equity: Ratnesh Yadav, Husk Power, provided an overview of a biomass-based power plant that uses discarded rice husks to generate electricity in India, mostly to remote off-grid areas. He said the by-product of the rice husk is also used to make incense sticks which local women then sell. 

Nancy Chege, UNDP, gave an overview of the Small Grants Program (SGP), highlighting two Kenyan projects: a micro-hydro project aimed at meeting the energy needs of poor off-grid communities; and energy-saving fuel woodstoves.

Jonathan Coony, World Bank, discussed local solutions and market opportunities in the context of Climate Innovation Centers, which aim to support developing country capacity to transfer, develop and deploy innovative climate technologies, and address local needs.

Participants discussed tax incentives to support clean technology development, including import tax exemptions for renewables and energy efficient technologies. One participant cautioned that tax exemptions could also harm local manufacturing.  Clean technology business models and the selection of grantees under the SGP were also highlighted.

HOW CAN WE GET IT DONE? WORKING AS PARTNERS AT THE COUNTRY LEVEL: This session was moderated by Stefan Raubenheimer, SouthSouthNorth Trust, South Africa, on Saturday morning. Raúl Delgado, Mexico, presented on his country’s investment plan for the CTF, highlighting key success factors, including: sound policy, institutional and legal arrangements; prior MDB involvement in the country; and a technical assistance program.

Guy Patrice Dkamela, Network for the Environment and Sustainable Development in Central Africa, Cameroon, emphasized the need for proper understanding of stakeholders, and their capabilities and the role they are required to play.

Mafalda Duarte, AfDB, highlighted a number of key challenges of working with partners at the country level, including: adequate representation, involving civil society organizations (CSOs) and non-governmental organizations which work with women and vulnerable groups; human resource constraints; and in-country donor coordination.

Ilhomjon Rajabov, Climate Change and Ozone Center, Tajikistan, outlined future work of the center, such as: ensuring continued consistency of programs with development objectives; and including climate change targets in these programs.

Bente Weisser, Norway, underscored that: private sector inclusion is imperative; MDBs need to coordinate activities and provide information in line with countries’ development objectives; and a level playing field is essential.

Winnie Byanyima, UNDP, provided an overview of the UN resident coordinator system, noting that the system brings all UN agencies together to promote development, and that the system can be utilized by the CIF immediately.

Erastus Wahome, Kenya, urged the establishment of PPPs to encourage the “crowding in” of the private sector. He called for the development of a results-oriented action plans and a credible financial mechanism for effective delivery of climate finance.

Linda Mossop Rossouw, South Africa, highlighted the success of women’s forestry outgrower schemes, saying that the social structures formed through the schemes allow joint community fora, shared decision making, and information sharing. She said this has led to increased local support for projects.

David Reed, WWF, introduced the concept of a climate registry as an option for the climate finance architecture, noting that it promotes the needs of developing countries while providing guarantees required by contributing countries.

In the ensuing discussion, participants addressed: the appropriate format for stakeholder consultations; use of indigenous knowledge in investment plans; results-based approaches; accountability of leadership; and climate change mainstreaming into development policy.

CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATION PANEL: ENABLING MEANINGFUL OBSERVER PARTICIPATION IN THE CIF

This session took place on Saturday morning and was moderated by Nicola Williams, Stakeholder Forum. During the session, participants shared key needs, challenges and experiences.

Francis Mwale, Transparency International, presented key findings from the multi-stakeholder surveys on effective and meaningful observer engagement with the CIF, conducted by his organization, which, he explained, covered: the civil society observer selection process in the CIF; and participation in the CIF. Highlighting challenges to observer engagement, he mentioned: constituency representation; capacity to communicate; insufficient networks at the global and local levels; and capacity to monitor the CIF. Mwale noted that in order to enhance observer participation, the following must be improved: communication and technology; capacity to monitor the CIF; and clear observer guidelines and local and global level networks. He observed that almost all the survey respondents demonstrated a lack of sufficient knowledge about the CIF, and of observer obligations and roles. He urged raising awareness about the CIF and strengthening CSO capacity to engage in meaningful and effective ways. On financial support, he noted that the participation of developing country observers is funded and recommended a uniform process to enable developed country observers to also receive funding for participation.

Bijay Nanda, Sandhan Foundation, India, spoke on collaborative networks for observers, underlining the need to develop observer leadership, information and communication technology capacity, and online collaboration capability. He highlighted experiences with the Coastal Community Resource Centre in Odisha, India, involving training coastal youth on wise management of coastal vegetation.

Ogazi Emeka, Transparency and Economic Development Initiatives, Nigeria, presented on common advocacy strategies to support the CIF’s objectives, project quality and desired outputs. He highlighted challenges and constraints faced by CSO observers, including: the one-year time limit on participation as a CSO observer with the CIF; ineffective coordination of stakeholders; lack of an adequate leadership approach; non-implementation of the recommendations made by CSO observers; and lack of technical assistance.

Patrick Karani, BEA International, Kenya, reflecting on his experiences as a private sector observer, said: observers are primarily concerned with financial risk; possible conflicts of interest need to be addressed; observers are not sufficiently motivated to participate in the FIP and PPCR processes; and a platform for discussion and engagement with private sector stakeholders is needed to ensure maximum benefit for observers.

In the ensuing discussion, participants highlighted the need for observers to take the lead in disseminating information. Responding to a question about guidelines and mandates for observers, Mwale added that the constituency represented by the observer must be defined and entitlements have to be made clear. Regarding the observer selection process, Emeka noted opportunities to consult on this issue and lamented that “only 5 people had attended” the civil society consultations for observer constituencies.  He added that a web-based application for observer selection would soon be devised. A participant stressed the need for more extensive information sharing on all CIF projects in order to ensure that observers are well-informed.

Participants also addressed the linkages and political dialogue between CSOs, the private sector and government, with Karani stressing that CSOs are more likely to foster an open political dialogue. Other issues addressed included: equitable gender involvement; the observer accreditation process; motivation for ongoing observer participation; and information sharing with observers’ constituencies.

UNEP SYMPOSIUM ON THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEAR-TERM CLIMATE PROTECTION AND AIR QUALITY BENEFITS

On Saturday afternoon, Mary Scholes, University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, moderated the session on the opportunities for near-term climate protection and air quality benefits, which was organized by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP).

Johan Kuylenstierna, Stockholm Environment Institute, presented on the findings of the UNEP/World Meteorological Organization Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone, saying that black carbon and tropospheric ozone are harmful air pollutants that contribute to global and regional climate change, and lamenting that little is known about their impacts. He said studies conducted to measure the impact of mitigation measures, such as filters and clean cook stoves, showed measurable decreases in black carbon.

Luisa Molina, Molina Center for Energy and the Environment, described measures to reduce black carbon emissions in different regions, including: diesel particle filters; vehicle labeling and scrappage programs; bus rapid transit systems; fuel switching to compressed natural gas; brick kiln modernization; vertical shaft brick kilns; and clean and efficient cook stoves. Molina informed participants that methane’s global warming potential increased with oxidation in the stratosphere and troposphere, and noted methane abatement methods, including: methane recovery and utilization of flare gas; converting landfill gas to energy; and livestock manure management. Molina recommended that the majority of black carbon and methane mitigation measures could be implemented under existing measures to improve air quality and highlighted initiatives to reduce methane, including the Global Methane Initiative, the Methane Blue Ribbon Panel and the Prototype Methane Financing Facility. She emphasized that a relatively small number of emission reduction measures could significantly help limit increases in global methane concentrations.

In the ensuing discussion, participants addressed, inter alia: listing black carbon as a controlled gas under the UNFCCC; and the appropriateness of crediting emission reductions from methane.

WRAP UP AND KEY MESSAGES

REPORTS BACK FROM PLENARY SESSIONS AND BREAKOUT SESSIONS: On Saturday afternoon, participants heard reports back from plenary and breakout sessions.

Messages from Pilot Country Meetings: Patricia Bliss-Guest, Program Manager, CIF Administrative Unit, summarized the messages from pilot country meetings, highlighting:

  • ensuring leadership, country coordination and country ownership;
  • prioritizing when determining where to allocate CIF resources;
  • building social capital, such as enhancing climate change literacy;
  • engaging local consultants in order to build capacity and benefit from local and traditional knowledge;
  • engaging with stakeholders in the design process;
  • creating incentives to engage the private sector; and
  • financing.

Emerging Lessons: On emerging lessons from CTF programming, Bliss-Guest underscored:

  • aligning CIF investment plans with development strategies;
  • removing barriers;
  • coordinating with other development partners;
  • creating avenues for the private sector and other stakeholders to contribute to the design of investment plans; and
  • ensuring adequate time for meaningful outreach and consultations.

On PPCR programming, she emphasized messages related to:

  • the steep learning curve in understanding the impacts of climate change and the priority actions to be taken;
  • the need for adaptive management by all partners;
  • the role of strong leadership;
  • the need for information at the grassroots level;
  • the importance of engaging stakeholders, which may require different approaches; and
  • the existence of differing circumstances and priorities, and definitions of transformational change, among countries.

On governance, Bliss-Guest highlighted:

  • the speedy and efficient governance structure of the CIF;
  • the important responsibility of committee members;
  • suitability of an equitable governance structure;
  • experiences from programs and pilot countries, which should inform Committees;
  • enhancement of Committees as a result of stakeholder involvement ; and
  • the potential for growth and improvement.

On the Expert Groups, she emphasized the following:

  • Expert Groups effectively assisted Sub-Committees;
  • guidance for Expert Groups was useful but more guidance was needed on expected output;
  • Expert Groups were strengthened by diverse expertise, and, working within a tight timeframe, had to rely heavily on collective knowledge and experience;
  • more extensive information from potential pilot countries would have facilitated selection; and
  • the Expert Groups’ mandate was limited to recommendations on country selection, so providing advice on resources and investment was not allowed.

CSO Panel: Nicola Williams, Stakeholder Forum, reported on individual observer perspectives on their experiences with the CIF, highlighting that: including civil society, indigenous peoples and the private sector in the governance of the CIF is an innovative effort to include new perspectives at an operational level; and informing and enabling observers to engage with the intricacies of the CIF’s operations is necessary. She also emphasized:

  • communication of technical concepts in terms that can be easily conveyed back to constituencies;
  • engagement of civil society and private sector stakeholders at the national and sub-national levels in designing and implementing CIF programs;
  • consideration of local realities and experiences when making decisions;
  • importance of parallel efforts to build a consensus view on strengthening observer selection;
  • significance of the selection process, which is under review, for observers to ensure that their views are represented; and
  • importance of linking civil society at the regional, national and sub-national level.

Greening Clean Energy Sources: Managing the Social and Biodiversity Trade-Offs for Wind Energy: Reporting on this session, Aline Kühl, CMS, said that although wind energy provides an exciting way forward as a low-carbon option, there are associated negative effects of wind energy. She said good practice measures are available, site selection is important, planning tools, such as maps, should be used, and participatory approaches are necessary. She outlined recommendations to the CIF from the session, including:

  • pilot country governments and partners should ensure that environmental and social issues are appropriately addressed throughout the project cycle;
  • governments and partners should prioritize the development of environmental sensitivity and zoning maps as essential tools for site selection;
  • where impacts on bird and bat populations might be significant, wind farms should operate in ways that minimize bird and bat mortality;
  • post-construction monitoring of environmental and social impacts should continue after the construction phase; and
  • the financial and economic implications of sound environmental and social management of wind power projects should be assessed in advance.

Tapping Growth Potential in Climate Change through Innovative Partnerships: Jamal Saghir, World Bank, highlighted the following messages from this group:

  • the provider, whether public or private, is not important as long as efficient, sustainable, low-cost services are available to the poor;
  • development of “smart,” cost-effective and sustainable PPPs and small PPP projects is essential; and
  • political stability, consistent government support, a strong private sector, leveraging of concessional funding and quality of partners, are important for innovative partnerships.

Financing Transformation: On financing transformation, Hela Cheikhrouhou, AfDB, reported that in the case of Costa Rica, the lesson learned is that good multi-sectoral public policies, elimination of perverse incentives and payments for environmental services have proven to be successful in stopping deforestation and for forest restoration, while, at the same time, promoting solid economic growth.

Regarding views on the Green Climate Fund, she observed that among the issues discussed were the need to:

  • accelerate the pace and the amounts to be mobilized from public and private sources;
  • keep support flowing while waiting for the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund; and
  • build potential recipient countries’ readiness to implement national climate change programs.

She said discussions had also highlighted that governance tools and eligibility for the Green Climate Fund should be driven by recipients’ priorities. Cheikhrouhou reported that examples of low-income household mass delivery of result-specific finance had been provided, including a global program for output-based aid and mobile banking in Kenya.

Putting Science to Work: State of the Art in Climate Modeling and its role in the CIF: Adrine Ter-Grigoryan, Armenia, said planning and implementing adaptation and mitigation responses should be based on a “credible and defensible” message about global, regional and local climate change. She added that this is possible by means of a combination of inputs, including:

  • consistent and complete weather/climate data series and climate phenomena;
  • robust and high resolution climate projections from multiple credible models; and
  • analysis and projections of extreme events.

Ter-Grigoryan said messages about regional changes should tell a story relevant to stakeholders and climate information should be tailored to the needs of users, from local farmers to large energy companies. She noted that partnerships are needed to enable access to information by those that need it and underscored the need for cooperation among the scientific community, government and private sector to increase the quality and accessibility of climate information.

Why Adaptation should be a Priority for the Private Sector: Perspectives for the PPCR: Hopeton Peterson, Jamaica, said the group had forwarded the following messages:

  • climate change poses high risks to the sustainability of private businesses, but this also translates into opportunities, as the private sector has enormous potential to leverage action and finance, both through reactive responses (expanding risk assessment and management to include climate change) and proactive responses (exploiting innovation potential to develop goods and services for climate resilience);
  • governments should create enabling conditions for exploiting the potential of the private sector, including through providing the right mix of incentives, such as awareness raising programs and targeted finance, while preventing the crowding out of incentives and avoiding harmful market distortion; and
  • strategic programs for climate resilience are an ideal means for governments to explore incentives for increased action on adaptation by the private sector.

Peterson said the process of developing these programs brings opportunities for governments to leverage innovation and finance by the private sector, including by:

  • engaging in dialogue with the private sector to identity priorities and identify business opportunities;
  • investing in knowledge and climate information products that are beneficial to a wide range of actors;
  • offering tailored finance, using local institutions, to reduce the perceived risks of investing in adaptation measures;
  • establishing partnerships for research and development of adaptation technologies; and
  • developing regulatory frameworks and building capacity for implementation.

Greening Growing Cities: Delivering Climate-Smart Mobility: Loretta Ayson, the Philippines, summarized this session, underlining the growing environmental challenge posed by the rapid growth in transport sectors. She highlighted that:

  • the “Avoid, Shift, Improve, Invest” model can be used for sustainable transport systems;
  • transport projects have been more successful in attracting CTF funding, than GEF and CDM funding; and
  • carbon dioxide mitigation must be placed higher on the transport planning agenda and scalable good models for sustainable transport must be created.

Leap into Green Growth: Promoting Clean Technology Manufacturing: Dan Gizaw, dVentus Technologies, Ethiopia, reported that some of the requirements and challenges for a country to promote clean technology manufacturing have been identified as:

  • regulatory frameworks;
  • access to financing;
  • markets;
  • policies, such as feed-in tariffs versus renewable portfolio standards;
  • fostering of innovation systems at the government level to support entrepreneurs;
  • use of climate funds to support governments to engage the private sector in the promotion of manufacturing opportunities and job creation; and
  • the procurement process and whether it allows for local demand.

How Can We Get it Done? Working as Partners at the Country Level: Guy Patrice Dkamela, Network for the Environment and Sustainable Development in Central Africa, Cameroon, said that partnership building is a complex issue and a desire for rapid delivery of results poses challenges for in-depth stakeholder consultations. He lamented institutional capacity constraints at the national and local levels, and underlined the need for increased private sector participation and donor coordination at the country level. He said recommendations to the CIF include the need for:

  • programmatic approaches to providing opportunities for coordination of partners;
  • self-organization, driven by governments, in establishing the architecture for partnerships and stakeholder involvement;
  • common platforms for communication, in order to ensure transparency and access to information;
  • inter-ministerial coordination;
  • enabling local communities and vulnerable groups to participate and benefit from plans; and
  • PPPs as a tool to “crowd-in” the private sector.

UNEP Symposium on the Opportunities for Near-term Climate Protection and Air Quality Benefits: Johan Kuylenstierna, Stockholm Environment Institute, reported back, noting the session addressed:

  • the UNEP/WMO Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone, which reported on reducing methane and black carbon to limit global temperature increases;
  • the benefits of reducing black carbon and methane, such as the benefits to health and agriculture; and
  • UNEP’s activities in exploring options to implement measures on a greater scale, which will be presented in Durban.

CLOSING PLENARY

On Saturday afternoon, Bobby Pittman, AfDB, moderated the closing plenary of the CIF Partnership Forum. In a closing statement, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane, Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, South Africa, reaffirmed South Africa’s commitment to a successful outcome at COP 17, stating that parties are accountable to the global citizenry, especially the poor and vulnerable who bear the brunt of the consequences of climate change. Nkoane-Mashabane said COP 17 negotiations must take place in a spirit of “give and take,” and stated that she will work to ensure that parties rise to the occasion and intensify consultations to build political will and reach a positive outcome. She implored participants to rally negotiators to instill a sense of urgency and common purpose. Quoting Nelson Mandela, she said “it always seems impossible until it gets done.”

In closing, Partnership Forum Co-Chair Renosi Makate noted that it is important for the African region to access climate finance to meet its needs, reminding participants that Minister Ghordan, in his keynote address, had challenged participants to change their way of thinking. She said it was inspiring to hear the voices of participants and highlighted the emerging theme of the importance of climate literacy and the need for a better understanding on how climate change can affect individuals and development as a whole. She called for participants to take the work forward, recalling Minister Nkoana-Mashabane’s observation that climate change alters the basis on which development is built and that the CIF can help rectify this.

Partnership Forum Co-Chair Andrew Steer thanked the CIF Administrative Unit and the AfDB for the opportunity to discuss, exchange ideas and share experiences, noting, however, that there was still work to be done. He thanked participants for the productive discussions during the course of the Forum and declared the Forum closed at 6pm.

PRESS BRIEFING

On Friday, 24 June, a press briefing was held. Bobby Pitman, AfDB, noted that the CIF provided inputs to the Green Climate Fund and said a proposed African green fund will be part of the Durban discussions. Partnership Forum Co-Chair Andrew Steer described the CIF as the largest climate funds in existence, with US$6.5 billion and operations in 45 countries. He said US$40-50 billion of clean, climate resilient investment would be leveraged, and that Africa receives 37% more from the CIF than any other region.

Responding to a question on the use of hydropower and its negative impacts, Pittman noted its underdevelopment in Africa and said hydropower was a low-cost source of renewable energy. Regarding awareness raising and civil society’s voices not being heard by governments, Steer said civil society participation had deeply enriched the process, and drew attention to a competition on Facebook, for African youth to make movies about climate change. A question was raised regarding assessing the relevance of the various existing and proposed funds and how they relate to one another. In response, it was noted that the CIF are a transitional instrument while the Green Climate Fund is being designed. Steer said it is not for the CIF to develop the structure of future funds.

On how South Africa is benefiting from the CIF, it was highlighted that South Africa: was one of the first beneficiaries of the CIF; is the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the region; and is suited to solar energy. Pittman noted that solar energy is still a commercial challenge. Regarding expectations for COP 17 in Durban, Steer said a global deal is not expected, but that Durban would provide building blocks for moving forward and would be an opportunity for African voices to be heard. He said agriculture would be brought into the Convention and lamented that CDM rules are biased against Africa, where 60% of the population still does not have access to electricity. Regarding expanding the number of countries receiving CIF funding, he said the funds would be reopened so more countries with good plans could obtain financing.

SIDE EVENT ON THE ROLE OF GENDER IN MITIGATION EFFORTS

On Saturday afternoon, the side event on the role of gender in mitigation efforts was moderated by Francois Rogers, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Annette Windemeisser, BMZ, Germany, urged broadening the discussion about gender and climate change mitigation, and capitalizing on gender-differentiated roles. She noted that the gender component of mitigation was not as intuitive as that of adaptation.

Lorena Aguilar, IUCN, urged “thinking outside the box” when addressing this issue. She said women are often seen as vulnerable victims of climate change, but should be viewed as agents of change. She noted the work of the Global Gender and Climate Alliance and highlighted the need for the four “I”s when discussing gender and climate change: impact; improve quality of life; increase sustainability; and involve women. She discussed: reducing household energy consumption by making efficient appliances available through the establishment of a financial mechanism for women; incorporating gender criteria in processes relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in Central America; and building awareness of transportation and gender issues in Egypt, highlighting an innovative transportation system on the Nile River that will be run by women. She said the CIF have the opportunity to move from good intentions to solutions.

Winnie Byanyima, UNDP, said the CIF can both decrease greenhouse gases and promote gender equality. She said the CIF should build-in gender equity principles and a women’s empowerment component. She also said monitoring and evaluation frameworks should show if gains are being made in gender equality, and that women’s ministries should be included in a substantial way in program design and implementation.

In the ensuing discussion, Byanyima urged increasing women’s involvement in the UNFCCC COPs to help raise their awareness. One participant advocated for inclusion of a gender expert in the CIF Sub-Committees, while another noted that under the SCF, gender has always been considered because of the organizations involved, but not under the CTF, which, he said, has not matured much in this respect.

Participants highlighted key recommendations, including the need for: gender expertise in the design and implementation phases; gender disaggregated data; and a platform for sharing experiences.

UPCOMING MEETINGS

THIRD AFRICA CARBON FORUM: This meeting will serve as a trade fair and knowledge-sharing platform for carbon investment in Africa. dates: 4-6 July 2011 location: Marrakesh, Morocco contact: Miriam Hinostroza email: acf@risoe.dtu.dk www: http://africacarbonforum.com/2011/english/index.htm

SECOND MEETING OF THE TRANSITIONAL COMMITTEE FOR THE DESIGN OF THE GREEN CLIMATE FUND: This meeting is being organized by the UN University and the UNFCCC Secretariat, with the support of the Government of Japan. It will be preceded by a Workshop on Lessons Learned from Relevant Funds and Institutions on 12 July. dates: 13-14 July 2011 location: Tokyo, Japan contact: Henning Wuester, Secretary to the Transitional Committee phone: +49-228-815-1000 fax: +49-228-815-1499 email: tc@unfccc.int www: http://unfccc.int/files/parties_and_observers/notifications/application/pdf/notification_to_party_observers_-_2nd_tc_meeting_and_workshop_-_tokyo.pdf

UNFCCC RESUMED SESSIONS OF AWG-KP 16 AND AWG-LCA 14: The resumed 14th session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperation under the Convention (AWG-LCA) and the resumed 16th session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) will convene in late September/early October. dates: late September/early October, exact dates TBC location: TBC contact: UNFCCC Secretariat: phone: +49-228-815-1000 fax: +49-228- 815-1999 email: secretariat@unfccc.int www: http://www.unfccc.int

THIRD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH UP-SCALING RENEWABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: This conference will take place in Kathmandu, Nepal. dates: 12-14 October 2011 location: Kathmandu, Nepal contact: Conference Secretariat phone: +977-1-553-2235 fax: +977-1-553-2234 e-mail: office@retrudconference.com www: http://www.retrudconference.com  

GLOBAL ROUNDTABLE: THE TIPPING POINT: SUSTAINED STABILITY IN THE NEXT ECONOMY: This Global Roundtable is being organized by the UNEP Finance Initiative and is intended to be a platform for the global financial sector to define what it expects to achieve during the Rio+20 Conference. dates: 19-20 October 2011 location: Washington, DC, US contact: Cecilia Serin, Global Roundtable Coordinator phone: +41-0-22-917-8253 email: Cecilia.serin@unep.ch www: http://www.unepfi.org/events/2011/roundtable/

CIF NOVEMBER 2011 COMMITTEE MEETINGS: These meetings will be held in Washington DC, US. dates: 31 October to 4 November 2011 location: Washington, DC, US contact: CIF Administrative Unit phone: +1-202-458-1801 email: cifadminunit@worldbank.org www: http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/

CIF NOVEMBER 2011 PILOT COUNTRY MEETINGS: These meetings will be held in Washington DC, US. dates: 7-11 November 2011 location: Washington, DC, US contact: CIF Administrative Unit phone: +1-202-458-1801 email: cifadminunit@worldbank.org www: http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/

UNFCCC COP 17 and COP/MOP 7: The 17th session of the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP 17) and the 7th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 7) will take place in Durban, South Africa. dates: 28 November to 9 December 2011 location: Durban, South Africa contact: UNFCCC Secretariat phone: +49-228-815-1000 fax: +49-228-815-1999 email: secretariat@unfccc.int www: http://unfccc.int/ and http://www.cop17durban.com

2012 CIF PARTNERSHIP FORUM: This meeting will take place in 2012, and will be co-hosted by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the CIF. dates: TBC location: TBC contact: CIF Administrative Unit phone: +1-202-458-1801 email: cifadminunit@worldbank.org www: http://www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/

GLOSSARY

ADB
AfDB
BMZ
CDM
CIF
CMS
CSO
CSP
CTF
FIP
GCM
GEF
IDB
IFC
MDB
PPCR
REDD

SCF
SGP
SREP
UNDP
UNEP
UNFCCC
Asian Development Bank
African Development Bank
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
Clean Development Mechanism
Climate Investment Funds
Convention on Migratory Species
Civil Society Organization
concentrated solar power
Clean Technology Fund
Forest Investment Program
global climate model
Global Environment Facility
Inter-American Development Bank
International Finance Corporation
multilateral development bank
Pilot Program for Climate Resilience
reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries
Strategic Climate Fund
Small Grants Program
Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program in Low Income Countries
United Nations Development Program
United Nations Environment Program
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
^ up to top
Back to IISD coverage

The CIF Partnership Forum Bulletin is a publication of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) <info@iisd.ca>, publishers of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin © <enb@iisd.org>. This issue was written and edited by Asheline Appleton, Kate Louw, Jonathan Manley, and Leila Mead. The Digital Editor is Francis Dejon. The Editor is Tomilola “Tomi” Akanle <tomilola@iisd.org>. The Director of IISD Reporting Services is Langston James “Kimo” Goree VI <kimo@iisd.org>. Funding for coverage of this meeting has been provided by the World Bank. IISD can be contacted at 161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 0Y4, Canada; tel: +1-204-958-7700; fax: +1-204-958-7710. The opinions expressed in the Bulletin are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of IISD. Excerpts from the Bulletin may be used in other publications with appropriate academic citation. Electronic versions of the Bulletin are sent to e-mail distribution lists (in HTML and PDF format) and can be found on the Linkages WWW-server at <http://www.iisd.ca/>. For information on the Bulletin, including requests to provide reporting services, contact the Director of IISD Reporting Services at <kimo@iisd.org>, +1-646-536-7556 or 300 East 56th St., 11D, New York, New York 10022, United States of America.

| Back to IISD RS "Linkages" | Visit IISDnet | Send e-mail to IISD RS |
© 20
11, IISD. All rights reserved.