Bangladesh maintains its position to get finance from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) as grants as the ministers continued negotiation in reaching a consensus on the issues still remained unsettled at the UN climate change conference in Paris yesterday.
Member of Bangladesh delegation Dr Hassan Mahmud, chairman of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Forests Ministry, stated the country’s stance at a press conference at the COP21 venue.
Bangladesh delegation leader, Environment and Forest Minister Anwar Hossain Manju, Secretary Dr Kamaluddin, environment expert Dr Ainun Nishat and eminent economist and environmentalist Dr Kazi Kholiquzzaman Ahmed also spoke at the event, explaining Bangladesh’s position in the wake of the country’s climate vulnerability.
“We’ve taken a strict position on grants,” Hassan said. “No loan from the climate change fund. It should come as compensation as we are the victims of consequences caused by others [developed countries],” he said.
In response to a question about what Bangladesh would do if the stance is rejected at the COP21, the minister said: “This is not our responsibility.
“It will be looked after by our Finance Ministry and then the prime minister. They will decide.”
“It is unlikely to be decided here. It will be decided separately in the GCF,” environment specialist Dr Saleemul Haq told the Dhaka Tribune. Bangladesh has sought around $50 billion annually from the GCF to meet the expenditure on planned adaptation and mitigation measure.
Former environment minister Hassan said there were many issues and areas needed to be addressed that require huge money. “The fund committed so far is very little and it has frustrated Bangladesh.”
Replying to another question, he cited an example that Bangladesh’s sea-level is rising gradually, putting around 40 million people along the coastal belt at risk. So, Bangladesh has decided to increase the height of the embankment along the coastal line. “We’ll also have to relocate the people from the extreme vulnerable areas of the country.”
He reiterated the country’s demand for adaptation fund from the GCF on a priority basis with preferential treatment. Necessary technology to mitigate emission must also come from the GCF as grant.
Meanwhile, the parties got down to business yesterday as a flurry of ministerial consultations were conducted through the day.
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, on the previous day, took the lead by placing the ministerial section of COP under an open-ended meeting known as the “Paris Committee” that occurs each evening to hear reports from the consulting ministers.
He has given the ministers clear guidance – their mandate is to bridge differences by facilitating discussion between the parties. He directed Parties to focus on solutions, rather than simply restate positions.
On Monday evening, the ministerial facilitators reported their consultations. The overall message was one of positive engagement from all Parties. Compromise, flexibility and, on some issues, convergence was reported in all four areas of negotiation as delegation members summarised.
A few facilitation reports indicated that some parties restated existing positions rather than providing solutions. On a positive note, statements from parties showed continued support for the COP president.
Negotiations benefited from the dynamic pace set by the French Presidency, but ministers still needed to consider four crucial issues before today noon, when the organisers expecting a primary draft on the outcome of the last two days.
There is a clear momentum behind the inclusion of a 1.5 degree temperature limit, says Climate Action Network, a network of over 900 NGOs.
However, the limit will only be achieved if the agreement sees a long-term goal and a process to revise commitments upward. There is also growing convergence on the importance of a global stocktaking, although the critical issues of when it begins and whether it rules out winding back commitments still remain unresolved.
“The ministers are holding the pen. Those of us who have watched for a long time see a new spirit of cooperation, but this cooperation has to result in something real and meaningful,” said Ruth Davis of Greenpeace, a member of CAN.
“Addressing loss and damage is a life and death issue, not a bargaining chip. Negotiators need to take the politics out of this topic,” said Harjeet Singh of ActionAid.