Can COP 17 conclude with a fully fleshed out adaptation package? ECO has a few healthy ideas. A good place to start is the Adaptation Committee negotiated under the AWG-LCA.
The comprehensive draft decision text from Panama provides the basis. The AC should be operationalised and start its work as soon as possible, and it will help if Parties have nominations for members in Durban.
Parties should agree on a strong role for the AC under the guidance and authority of the COP, and allow it to report directly to the COP rather than only through the SBI. While consideration in the SBI could be productive, e.g. during the Bonn sessions when the COP does not meet, the SBI should not become the supervisory body of the AC.
The section on composition contains a proposal for two advisory members each from southern and northern civil society. It is not relevant which Parties made this proposal; rather we encourage delegates to look at the value of the meaningful engagement of civil society.
There is a wealth of supporting examples. For example, in the Global Fund to fight HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, civil society representatives are full board members with voting rights. For the Committee on Food Security in the FAO, there is a mechanism whereby CSO representatives from different constituencies (fisherfolk, farmers, herders, landless, etc.) are selected and have full access and the right to talk but not vote in the procedures of the Committee. Currently, there are four CSO members as well as some from the private sector.
Further, it would be beneficial to assure a developing country majority in the AC,including specific seats for LDCs and SIDS, as well as gender balance.
Finally, Parties should ensure that the AC can provide recommendations to other institutions, including those of the financial mechanism, thereby contributing to a more coherent approach to adaptation and widening the application of conclusions and experience gathered by the AC.