 Felly, wrth fy si ffenn oedd i'n vivanaeth i gael chi a gweithio eich cwrs ceisio i enw i ddweud ymddangos o gyfrifaradau U.K. Fe, dyfodd y gyfrifaradau uchelio, dyfodd hynny a gweithio eu canfaen. Mae hyn wedi gweithio i'n gweithio i'r marwyr, mwyn fyddwyd ein gweithio i'n fearsStart Mae'r bwysigiedig yn fwy, maen nhw'n argyrch chi'n dynnu Chymniadau Aelod ar ôl fan mwy. Mae'n fwy yn fwy, maen nhw'n arddangos ag yr health unit yn ymwneud. Mae'r bwysigiedig yn fwy, maen nhw'n argyrch chi'n dynnu Chymniadau aelodau rhwngynol. Mae'r mwy yn amlwg amser o gyflawni'r ffaith yn ymddangos, mae'r cymdrif yn dynnu Pwysigiedig yn fwy. Ac fel y gweithio ychydig, mae'n meddwl am y cyd-farnwyr yma yw'r maethau yma sy'n meddwl. Mae'r meddwl yn ymddangos ei wneud, yn ymdillai'n meddwl, yn cael ei gwell am y gweithio'n meddwl, ond ei ddweud am hynny'n cael ei gweithio'n meddwl. O ceisio fi ond vi i oes iawn yn dweud bod ni eich gwaith gan hynny i groesio, sobrei wath â braw sydd wedi eu newid i algun calculate y mysgol fel yowing. gyda'r bwysig o dod i'r grifiadau yng Nghymru.yd y gael gyffiniaeth hynny, that I wanted to quote out also, is I understand that we need business, but joining that, ask this time, this is the first time I've had private sector here as well. That's obviously hugely important as we're going to need to be working with private sector to get private investment in. So if we're a community of practice You're all seen before. It's an opportunity for us to be iterating our learning, and working at the global, the national level and the local level and understanding how that learning can feed up. It's going to be an open and safe space, re-nutruing ambition and innovation and trying to reward learning irrespective of whether success or failure. But this is really also The ambition of Paris. It's a hugely complicated slide. It's trying to summarise what we've got to do over the next 20 years. We start with the far left, we've got Paris agreed, but every country sets out its ambition, its pledges, in slightly different ways, with different timeframes, and it's very hard for us to get our heads around. What Marrakesh is seeking to do is to try to bring a level of guidelines a byddiol yn lluniau? That is also an opportunity for learning. If we can begin to all set out in the same ways. Here is a success here, and other countries can go, ah, you are doing that, let us out, why not you try that as well. So if we can get these and at the bottom this is us, this is the observers and the doers. We have got to push our governments to build their ambition every five years. Ond y bydd hyn yn credu i'r GRWP LDC a'r LIDA, y gweithio'r LIDA, sy'n deall, y gylau'r oedd yn gweithio. Mae'n gwybod bod yn cyfwyrdol yn ddugiadau sy'n 5 annes, ac mae'r hordd yn helpu, mae'n gweithio'n i ddwych ar y cyfanol. Mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio i fynd i'r Fylltwr. this is what works, do more of it, replicated. The idea also is that we ask the government to set out their pledge, their firm plan for five years, but set out an indicative future five years, to give a bit more forward look to the businesses and governments that are investing in infrastructure in those longer term decisions. If we can get this right, that's fabulous. We begin to move up in ambition, and push our ambition up to that 1.5 degree aspirational target. For all of these steps to happen, governments need confidence, they need to know that this is possible, that they can do it, and that's what we need to be able to show them is how we do it. The real emphasis on this community practice is not just pushing to help the governments to say that they'll do more, but showing them that we can do more, so it's done. So, where are we in the negotiation? In my idea we have colleagues who are supporting the LDC group, and I got a brief last night, so this is a summary of where we are over the last week. The Marrakesh theme was implementation, but in fact because of the early entry into force, the conversation is much less about the implementation and much more about the procedural how are we going to negotiate the rules of the Paris Agreement. It's a challenge to do that because some countries have ratified, others haven't quite yet. Who's allowed in the room to negotiate those deals? It's really a question of the CMA, which is the decision-making body. Are they suspended for one year or two? The LDC group is saying just to spend for one year in Greece in decisions. Developed countries are saying, all the decisions have to be agreed together. So those are the sorts of things that are going on at the Cup at the moment. The huge challenge around these climate negotiations is all the issues interrelate, so how do you sequence them? How do you get the right balance between the different issues so that the developing countries' interests are there as well as the push for the developed countries to do more? I've really tried to simplify the rules that they're discussing. It was about five pages of brief that summarises at a very high level, and I've tried to get it into a few lines. But basically, everyone's agreeing these review mechanisms. That's the global stop-take, the NDCs, when communications happen, and trying to get their synchronised pledge and review that I spoke to earlier, the five plus five, five years of firm plans, five years of indicative plans, and trying to get their global transparency agreements there. This is around compliance, some bits around do we actually believe that what we're doing is enough, the global stop-take needs to tell us whether everyone's joined up ambition actually adds up to what's needed. But it's not just about action, and a lot of the discussions in the Cup are always around the mitigation, which of course is vital. But we also need to be assured that the finance is flowing as it's been promised. We need to be assured that adaptation is being supported in the way that it should. So getting that balance is a lot of what the NDCs are pushing for at the moment. And then the house rules are all about facilitating implementation rather than about compliance. But there needs to be some level of do we actually think that people are doing what they've said. And then an issue that has yet to arise that I think is incredibly important for all of us. In the negotiations, they're always talking about the global level. But to get real action summarised at the global level we need to be clear what's happening at the national level and at the sub-national level, the local level. And so I think there's a real opportunity for us as a community of practice to be supporting downward accountability. So that at a national level the donors are telling the government this is what finance we're giving you and this is what it's for. Does it fit with your priorities? And at a national level the national government and the donors are saying this is the finance available, how do you want to use it? So trying to pull that down with accountability into the debate I think is really important. I don't want to go through all of this, it's enormous. But all of the different things that's being discussed have covered some of them, the mitigation communications. How do we get more uniformity and how the governments are expressing what they're going to do on mitigation and provide enough flexibility for the LDCs because these processes of summarising on greenhouse gas stocktake is incredibly technical and hugely resource intensive. On adaptation communications big questions around there's a lot of countries that have already started developing their national adaptation plans. How does that fit with the NDCs? How do we bring it all together? And again, the opportunity to capture what's working. So rather than make it all about compliance you've said you do this, have you done it make it much more about this is what's working really well so that other countries can begin to adopt those same practices and try and do that in a way that it doesn't have a massive reporting burden. Climate finance, this huge credibility gap has been there forever now. The donors say we're giving this amount of money and the countries aren't really seeing it on the ground still. The donors have set out the roadmap to 100 billion but the LDC group is very disappointed on the level of detail. It's all about we will do this in a very broad terms rather than the mechanisms of actually where the finance is going to flow and which funds it's going to go in. There's an element of flexibility in reporting for the least developed countries but they're saying don't just give us flexibility for reporting and leave us out we actually want support in order to be able to report on how much financing is really coming to us. On the adaptation target the roadmap says that they're going to double the finance even with a doubling by 2020 it's only 27%. Now some donors in the UK and the GCF and a couple of others have said that they're about 50% they're going to be 50% on adaptation shouldn't we see more donors trying to achieve that sort of level. The really big issue is that the finance that is flowing is all flowing for energy and for all. I'm exaggerating enormously because we have mitigation in the middle-income countries and so the LDCs, the SIDS are fairly saying it's not coming to us but what mechanisms can help us actually begin to bring this finance in and so they're pushing for the adaptation fund to be given a greater role become a mechanism of the Paris Agreement and for the LDCF the least developed country fund to be given new ambitions. On gender very good news basically consensus that the lean are working groups to continue and promote gender-responsive programming and this of course is hugely important for the type of work that we're all involved in so great that that's getting proper recognition. On capacity development conversations are really just beginning but one of the opportunities I think is underneath the push for the LDCF to be much more about building the capabilities of the poorest countries to build a project pipeline that can get investment but they're pushed to move away from the flow and play out TA and try and build the mechanisms that actually provide that long-term capability in country and then on loss and damage the limits of adaptation are there we're all in this group I'm sure very aware of it so big questions about how that's handled and whether it's part of the review mechanism for Paris so there you go that's the summary of the negotiations sorry to have been taking you through it so fast with so much text but just to illustrate this credibility gap just 8% of climate finance has been dispersed today so the top line is how much has been pledged the next line is how much has actually gone into the funds the next line is how much has been approved and then that final line is actually how much has got out to countries doing anything right now and what we're also seeing is that as I said earlier 95% of the finance for the public finance for energy is going to the middle and high income countries just 5% of the low income countries and on the right what you can see here is that 50% is going to sort of on grid energy just 9% for the sort of off grid to centralise energy that actually can reach the poorest rapidly so whilst we know a lot of what works and what will really make a difference in poor people's lives and really know that the low income countries need the finance most actually the finance is not flowing in the right ways yet so this credibility gap is huge so we've got Paris but it's not a blank sheet we've all been working on climate change for some time now the climate finance has been around since it was really agreed at Copenhagen and we've learnt a lot we're not starting with a blank sheet so we can learn from the mistakes of the past we know that if the finance comes in a more flexible way and local people are engaged in deciding how it should be used you get to all sorts of co-benefits the agile institutions that can be responsive and react to different things we've also seen a lot of governments set up their own national climate finance and have seen how that has nudged development finance in different ways to focus more on what will make a bigger difference for resilience we've also learnt a lot about the importance of long-term plans and then developing a pathway of how to get there so the climate change strategies a lot of governments have set up over the last few years really begin to give a long-term view and start to work with the sectors on how to get there and there's all sorts of interesting work that's being trialled in different places around energy futures under things like the maps programme around land use around more coherent risk management so we can start with what's working already but we also have to increase the quality of learning and try to get that iteration so that we can share what's working much more rapidly and move the debates forward it's important to support that through more locally owned processes and choosing and being politically astute choosing when to work with the grain or when to try and develop a new narrative and these are all mechanisms for creating a much greater ambition within the countries with whom we partner or building much broader coalitions to demand for the policy changes that are needed so I guess the biggest message from Paris is with everyone focusing on the NDCs right now let's not get caught in a spiral of just master planning and trying to get the perfect plans right let's really focus on what works and have that delivery focus in our minds when we're planning I'm really not going to go through this I'm just putting it up to say that supporting the NDCs there's an awful lot to learn from the PRSPs, bananas and manapas and that experience can really be brought together with a much more how do we support governments to build their own planning processes and understand what's working and there are all sorts of ways of doing it and these are some of the tactics but I'm not going to go through them I can share the slides afterwards if you're interested we also oops we also as I've said already know a lot more than we did 10 years ago around what climate informed poverty reduction looks like we know that more variable climate change makes getting people out of poverty and staying out of poverty escaping poverty in a sustained way harder and we need to be better at expressing that to our development colleagues we know that climate positive development can be brought about through a set of instruments that can both reduce poverty and enable adaptation and really exciting work in a number of countries around shock responsive social protection around contingency finance and insurance that's triggered by full pass automation of decision processes so you're not waiting for donors to make up their minds we know lots about how to build resilient local economies whether that's in terms of jobs or markets or livelihoods and we know that decentralisation can offer a huge opportunity for building local institutions that agile and climate aware we also know a lot about what is poverty reducing mitigation so all this off grid renewables can democratise energy get energy out to households much more rapidly and there's all sorts of work around the cities as well about how to plan in a pro-core way pro-core transport and housing that also reduces their energy demands and hence the D&C themes which I think are enormously exciting if these themes can begin to capture all of that experience of this community of practice and set it out for the governments that are struggling with what do we prioritise, what do we do first what should we have in our D&C investment plans so there's the opportunities to discuss the actions was the Paris ambition what are the ambitious and pragmatic particularly feasible climate solutions what's innovative and helps to catalyse that climate leadership that we need to see and then around the just and equitable decision making the role of the different parts of society in how to promote this transformative accountability but really looking at what builds equity of just decision making so what will create that downward accountability and then in the managing climate risks this innovation around the divide the climate humanitarian divide and how that's brought together and there's so many examples of actually how to do that in this room now so we can move beyond just saying you must do it, this is how you do it these are the practical steps and the opportunity for this group learning to then feed into the next event which will be the community based adaptation conference which is being hosted with Macarera in Uganda, ACAD and Macarera's partnership again bringing together a very similar group but much more focus perhaps on the sort of NGOs and the national level governments who won't be so busy in the negotiations hopefully and follow these themes through and then hopefully we'd really like to see that as they're iterating these themes more and tested some of the ideas that have come out of this group that can come back up to the DNC days next year so if you've got ideas about how the themes should develop or how they should be managed or shaped to be more relevant and more practical and more useful then do let us know at the end of these days great, thank you very much