golf charlie, thanks for your continuing interest. It's probably getting boring now - I confess - but it's keeping me out of mischief.

Next up is International Environmental Communication Association, who sent 4 people to COP22, including (appropriately, I suppose, given their title) a Senior Lecturer in Media and Communication Studies and two Professors of Communication Studies. I know I'm more than a little old-fashioned, but there are 3 people with non-jobs, so far as I am concerned.

From their web-site:

"Welcome to IECA, the International Environmental Communication Association. We are a new association, just launched in 2011, but with roots that go back twenty years. From the first biennial Conference on Communication and Environment in 1991 to the Environmental Communication Network, to the professional journal Environmental Communication: A Journal of Nature and Culture (all now part of IECA), not to mention the many efforts of practitioners, teachers, scholars and other organizations, the field has come a long way.

Our mission is to foster effective and inspiring communication that alleviates environmental issues and conflicts, and solves the problems that cause them. We do this by bringing together and supporting practitioners, teachers, scholars, students, artists and organizations that share these goals.

We pursue our mission through activities that promote international collaboration among our members and with other interested parties in ways that are consistent with goals of social and ecological sustainability in diverse contexts. Specific objectives include:

a. providing an international forum for transdisciplinary networking and collaboration and the advancement of the field of environmental communication;
b. supporting research and scholarship in environmental communication;
c. supporting practitioners’ and professionals’ applied environmental communication;
d. building connections and partnerships with non-governmental organizations, policymakers, businesses, institutions, and community members;
e. promoting pedagogy, teaching, and curriculum development at a variety of educational levels;
f. developing and promoting sustainable best practices in applied environmental communication settings; and
g. promoting awareness of environmental communication as a practice and field of study among professionals, educators, activists, policy makers, and media organizations.

Our vision is to be a thriving, well-supported, and collaborative professional nexus of people and organizations whose environmental communication teaching, research, projects, campaigns, creations, and other activities are helping to achieve environmental health and justice."

So that's another organisation we could do without, and nobody would notice (except those employed there, I suppose).

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to find that their Chair is Soenke Lorenzen, who is also Global Engagement Research Manager at Greenpeace International in the Netherlands. This is his (rather meaningless) take on things:

"Being one of the few board members whose engagement with environmental communication is rooted in the NGO sector, has been a challenging and rewarding task in the past four years. I am proud that the IECA has managed to mature and grow in those years, but one of the major challenges we have been facing, to build connections and partnerships with non-governmental organizations, policymakers, businesses, institutions, and community members, hasn't quite been met, but we have reached some milestones (eg. observer status for UNFCCC). Another objective that has proven to be a challenge is promoting awareness of environmental communication as a practice and field of study among professionals, educators, activists, policy makers, and media organizations. I hope that we will be able to meet these challenges in the coming years by creating a stronger financial base to empower us to make investments into providing services (workshops, white papers etc.) to and network with professionals outside of academia. I see my role on the board as a bridgehead between NGO professionals and academics, in the past years I have been able to initiate numerous collaborations between environmental NGOs and researchers from the field on communication/media studies."

The Secretary is Gabriele Hadl, Associate Professor at Kwansei Gakuin University, School of Sociology, Japan. This is her take on things:

"I have received my education on three continents, and am now a permanent resident of Japan. My parents loved scuba diving and made their own media (amateur underwater films), but it took me surprisingly long to identify as an environmental communication scholar. My previous fields include film and cultural studies (BA, MA), alternative media (PhD), and media policy (Post-doc). I love networks and associations (also a legacy of my parents I suppose) and have been part of OURmedia, Indymedia Japan, BuyNothingDay Japan, Japan Society for Studies in Journalism and Mass Communication and IAMCR (International Council Member 2012-16).

I hope to help establish IECA as an inspiring example for other professional organizations: striving for its practices to be as environmentally responsible as its words (i.e. green conferencing, low-carbon networking, carbon divesting), fiscal responsibility and accountable governance, a clear vision, and supporting a mutually supportive community.

The most urgent matter facing the world is climate change and the myriad environmental and social problems it amplifies. We need to have 'all hands on deck'. IECA members are people who want to rise to that challenge. They are committed, each in their own way, to fight for social, intergenerational and inter-species justice. The job of the organization (especially the board) is to empower them to do so.

The enemy is BAU (business as usual)."

Educated on 3 continents and now working in Japan. Good to see her taking care of her carbon footprint!

There are many more like that on the board if you can be bothered to look:

https://theieca.org/about/board

They're obviously a US-based charity (and therefore in effect receiving funding from US taxpayers) as they're keen to point out that you can donate to them tax-free.

They are sufficiently coy about their funding that I can't find out where it comes from. However, I suppose this covers quite a lot: "The IECA is an official non-governmental organization observer to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. "

Their website includes something called the EC [presumably Environmental Communication] List. You could read some of them if you find watching paint dry to be a bit too exciting:

https://theieca.org/publications/ec-list

It wouldn't let me cut & paste, so I provide the web-page above. If it whets your appetite, no. 4 on the list is entitled "Impaled polar bear sculpture highlights global warming threat."

Mark Hodgson, I find it very depressing that so much effort can go into calculating Carbon Footprints, when so much oxygen is converted into carbon dioxide by people dedicated to doing nothing useful, whilst being paid.

When made redundant, they will find that all the contacts they have "Networked", are useless, because they will also be looking for paid employment, that requires no genuine experience of "work"

Mark

It looks as if a number of these organisations are getting funds from the UK government.

I would like the British government to draw up a list of which of these fake charities and quangos receive funding either from the climate change department (wherever that sits now), the Overseas development department, the Foreign Office etc etc.....and then turn off the tap. I am thinking of writing to my MP on the matter, prompting him to ask the question. They certainly seem to have proliferated like a particularly malignant cancer.

@gc

From personal experience of the utility sector, considerable effort is now expended reporting on carbon footprint, as demanded by the regulators. And having been in a room full of practitioners of carbon accounting, they approach their work with not inconsiderable zeal.

DaveS, I think the world is about to find itself with an unexpected oversupply of carbon accountants. Many of them will need to reword their CVs to make it appear they had been doing something useful.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/20/trump-wants-to-know-how-much-taxpayer-money-the-state-department-gives-environmental-groups/

Mark Hodgson. US Taxpayers could have paid for a guide to some of the world's best hotels and banqueting facilties, but sadly we will never know.

golf charlie

I remain deeply nervous about Trump, but if he gets a handle on the great green gravy train and cuts funding that the UN and its plethora of spin-offs wastes, then he will get a lot of brownie points from me.

Dave S - it seems to be the same with the NHS too. I was in Workington Hospital the other day, where they apparently have some solar panels. Difficult to see that they'll achieve too much in Workington, especially in winter, but up on the wall was an electrical read-out telling us how many tonnes of CO2 they'd saved. Pointless virtue-signalling at the taxpayers' expense. Perhaps if the NHS concentrated on what it's supposed to do, it wouldn't be in such a mess.

Women Environmental Programme sent 8 people (2 of whom were men) to COP22. Their website proudly trumpets:

"The organization emerged in response to the environmental pollution by industries in Kaduna state in particular and Nigeria in general, but its founders have always viewed the Nigerian environmental crisis only as an entry point for the deepening of engagement with the various stakeholders and enlightenment of Nigerians on other socio-economic and political issues within and internationally. To facilitate this process, the organization creates and sustains interest in socio-economic and political issues especially among women and youth in the country and across the globe. An NGO with United Nations ECOSOC Consultative Status, Observer Status to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Observer Status to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). WEP is a member of the African Working Group on Gender and Climate Change(AWGGCC), member of the Women and Gender Constituency at the UNFCCC, Organizing Partners (OP) for the Women Major Groups at the United Nations(UN) processes and National Coordinator, Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council(WSSCC) for Nigeria"

'Nuff said! Except that there's more to say. Under latest news:

"Women Environmental Programme's Executive Director, Priscilla Achakpa has been honoured by Channels Television of Nigeria and Deutsche Welle(DW) of Germany as an Eco Ambassador for Eco@Africa, for her achievements in environmental activism. This honour was conferred on her on Saturday, 16th April, 2016, during the launch of Eco@Africa, a new co-production from DW and Channels TV that showcases innovative environmental concepts from Africa and Europe, at Transcorp Hilton Hotel, Abuja."

Donors:

Misereor

Delegation of the European Commission to Nigeria

United Nations Development Programme

Irish Aid International

Global Environment Facility(Small Grant Programme)

African Women Development Fund(AWDF)

Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council (WSSCC)

But donors (often European taxpayers) also give them money for one-off programmes, eg:

"The Kingdom of Netherlands has made a financial contribution to Women Environmental Programme (WEP) for the implementation of the project: “Ensuring Effective Implementation of Programmes, Policies and Legislations, that Contribute Towards Achieving Gender Equality in Nigeria by 2030.”

The contribution agreement was signed between WEP and the Kingdom of Netherlands on 31st of October, 2016, at the Embassy of the Kingdom of Netherlands, Abuja, Nigeria. WEP was represented at the signing ceremony by her Executive Director, Priscilla Achakpa, while the Kingdom of Netherlands was represented by Angelique van der Made, the Second Secretary of the Embassy of the Kingdom of Netherlands, who represented the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development.

This 5-year project is to be implemented in Benue and Zamfara States and targets Legislators, Legislative Aids and States’ Executives; Civil Society Organizations; Traditional and Religious Leaders.

Objectives of this project include:

Advocate for policies and legislations that promote women participation at all levels of decision making, and remove all obstacles (social, political, cultural and economic) hindering women’s empowerment and participation in decision making and infringing on women’s rights.
Ensure effective implementation of programmes and projects through capacity building of CSOs, budget monitoring and information sharing.
Raise awareness amongst stakeholders on the fundamental rights of women"

Global Networking Partners:

Women and Gender

Constituency (WGC) of the UNFCCC

Women's Major Group-UN

Gender and Disaster Network

Gender and Climate Change Network

Global Land Tool Network

International Land Coalition(ILC)

Habitat International Coalition

Women for Water Partnership

World Alliance for Citizens Participation(CIVICUS)

Clearly not everything about the group is bad, and like so many groups attending COP22, they have some worthwhile objectives. However, I can't escape the feeling that much of what they do and say is pointless and that they waste a lot of money, whilst being very good at milking the taxpayers of the western world. Being "[a]n NGO with United Nations ECOSOC Consultative Status, Observer Status to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Observer Status to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)" seems to be the key to accessing so much of this money.

Mark Hodgson, virtue signalling is wasting millions in the UK NHS alone. As someone requiring regular visits to the NHS, Haematology, Chemo, etc, I am very impressed with the professionalism of the Doctors, Nurses and other frontline support staff. It is the "professional managers and admin" that are so frustrating, with their "computer says no!" attitude. The Doctors are tearing their own hair out at times, due to the bloody computer. "Dumbing down" of decision making processes, that require knowledge and experience, to cope with dumber staff and inflexible computer software, is the scourge of many professions, including "para-legal" type work, that I have had some fringe involvement with.

As for Trump, I have never been much of a fan, but his character flaws are trivial, compared to the Clinton's. Quite why so much propaganda has been anti-Trump but pro-Clinton, is starting to unfold, but swamp-draining is required, and will reveal a nasty smell, that may drift this side of the Atlantic aswell.

Fracking smells and sounds delightful in comparison.

The mysteries of how much the UK pays to the EU is still being argued about. The USA contribution to the UN may be argued about in 2017

golf charlie

"The mysteries of how much the UK pays to the EU is still being argued about." Indeed. How much do we pay, not directly to the EU, but to climate change NGOs, which are EU favourites? How much do we pay directly to organisations like the European Investment Bank?

I know that the figure of £350M per week was much vilified, and not without reason, but nobody on the Remain side seemed interested in talking about things like the European Investment Bank and climate change funding (not that the Brexit spokespeople were sufficiently clued up, by and large, to talk about them either).

Mark Hodgson, I was not even a teenager in1974, but the idea of a Common Market, to secure food production, and stabilise supply, demand, income for producers and prices for consumers was something I could understand.

I suppose I did notice increased prosperity amongst farmers through the 70s and into the 80s, and worked on farms as a student, well aware that much of the grain I helped to harvest, just got piled in a European mountain somewhere in mainland Europe, not in the UK.

I do recall some of the news footage of Maggie taking on Europeans, and the mixed reactions she got back home. I supported her. I did not "see" what her concerns were, as I did not "see" how the UK electorate would vote to hand over more and more power to the EU. Blair never asked the UK electorate. He just did it.

Remainers are legally correct that the current PM, can not instigate BREXIT. How the hell was it possible for us to get this far on the nod of Major and Blair? That is abuse of Democracy. The louder Remainers squeal from their financially enhanced positions, the more selfish they prove themselves to be.

Terrorists have again targetted Germany. Of all EU countries, Germany has done more for refugees, and the EU, than any other. The Islamic terrorists seem intent on destabilising Germany, AND the EU, at a time when the USA is about to become less amenable to stroppy foreigners. I know that Islamic terrorists are very factionalised, with conflicting interests and goals. This is far more worrying for European countries, but it is not Politically Correct for the EU to say so.

golf charlie

I suspect you and I are of an age, and of a similar mind-set. Crotchety regarding the abuse of climate change alarmism, disillusioned with politics, opposed not to the principle of the EU but to what it has become, reasonably experienced regarding the world and its ways having held down responsible jobs, lovers of the great outdoors, true environmentalists (unlike the faux ones we have today, always jetting off to conferences and telling us to do, not as they do, but as they say).

Maybe we should set up a political party, though I suspect it would be a bit bespoke and with a limited membership!

Dec 22, 2016 at 8:53 AM | Mark Hodgson

Yes! You are about right. Work, family, friends etc have taken me into some "interesting" places/situations/environments.

I do enjoy "Have I Got News For You", especially some of the revelations about why something was said or done, rather than the approved version of the "truth" previously given out.

Having been taken for a fool by climate science with the Hockey Stick, I am now very wary. I hope that the good bits of climate science (surely there must be some?) can be identified and saved, but climate scientists are still pursuing a win-at-all costs strategy, so their loss is going to be a massacre. I hope that the environment and science generally, do not suffer.

Mark Hodgson, the Brandt Report looked at how the world had developed. The single page entry in Wikipedia is worth reading.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandt_Report

How, in the early 1980s was the UN supposed to get the Northern Hemisphere (plus the Antipodes) to trash their economies in favour of the Southern Hemisphere?

The Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and the Cold War ended. The Global Warming War had started in 1988 with the formation of the IPCC, and has blown the Peace Dividend ever since, on fighting CO2. Not a great advert for Progressive Socialism.

John Shade

Many thanks for the kind words, and for the link, which I've saved to look at over the holiday period.

Inuit Circumpolar Conference to their credit sent only one person to COP22, and theirs seems like an organisation that I could in principle support. Sadly, however, they have the inevitabel climate change section on their website, full of the usual meaningless guff:

"Climate Change
ICCs Executive Council, with the strong leadership of its Chair, made considerable efforts and significant gains in advancing the interests of Inuit with respect to climate change in 2002 2006. This was one of ICCs principle initiatives and it undertook many climate change activities including communicating its Arctic manifestations to the world, working with those that hope to mitigate the current and future impacts of climate change, and supporting initiatives that aim to hold those responsible for climate change accountable to Inuit and others that are and will be affected.

ICC participated very actively in the preparation from 2002 to 2004 of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) by the Arctic Council. Further, ICC drafted climate change policy recommendations in cooperation with all six permanent participants to the Arctic Council. These recommendations were approved by Arctic Council ministers in November 2004 on behalf of all 6 indigenous peoples organizations who have permanent participant standing in the Council. ICC urged effective follow-up measures by each of the Arctic Council's working groups. ICC participated in Conferences of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Milan, Buenos Aires, and Montreal during 2002 2006. ICC then supported the ICC Chair and 60 other Inuit from Alaska and Canada in mounting a path-breaking climate change-based petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

The ACIA bears special mention. A team of more than 300 leading Arctic researchers, indigenous representatives, mainly through the six Permanent Participants, and other experts from 15 nations participated in the work on the ACIA. They distilled and synthesized available scientific information, traditional knowledge, and indigenous perceptions in order to examine how climate and ultraviolet radiation have changed in the Arctic, how they are projected to change in the future, and what the consequences of these changes will be for the Arctic and the world. Delivered to the ministers of the Arctic Council Member States in November 2004 the ACIA provided the foundation for a broad range of policy recommendations in the field of climate change pertaining to mitigation, adaptation, as well as research, observations, monitoring, modeling and outreach. ICC was active within each of the ACIA activities.

Special climate change projects were also initiated within each of the ICC regions. One such project is the Sila-Inuk project. As an outgrowth of ICCs international work on this matter, Greenlands Hunters and Fishermens Organization, KNAPK, jointly with ICC are leading this multi-year project. Sila-Inuks main objectives are to collect climate change observations first hand from those most closely connected to the land, sea, and ice. National Greenland radio and other broadcast media will be used significantly in the project.

A full-scale communications initiative was undertaken on the climate change issues. Speeches were delivered to audiences worldwide, including the Senate of the United States and the Clinton Global Initiative to bring Arctic and Inuit perspectives on climate change to the attention of decision-makers. In addition, the Office of the Chair undertook much media work to bring Inuit and Arctic perspectives on climate change to global audiences, and to convince foundations to look to the Arctic as a venue for activities and support. As further mandated by the delegates in Kuujjuaq, ICC protected the interest of Inuit initiatives in international forums such as the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), which was held in Johannesburg, South Africa."

They do seem to like to travel! And their 2016 press releases include things like this:

"​ICC Calls for a Global Fund for Indigenous Peoples to Advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development". In other words, "we used the word 'sustainable' - give us money".

Needless to say "The organization holds Consultative Status II at the United Nations."

Having said that, no doubt the next NGO I look at will be much worse.

Mark Hodgson, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference is full of the normal guff words. "Advancing the interests of ....." is a classic. I think it can be summed up as "registering an interest in the compensation payments, that have been promised by those employed or directly funded by the UN".

It is a shame those making all these assurances about the amount of compensation that the developed worlds were going to have to pay, didn't find some evidence first, before wasting so much money on building up false hopes.

Mark Hodgson, if you find any references to the Marshall Islands, and how they are all doomed due to storms and sea level rise, try this link:

http://marshall.csu.edu.au/Marshalls/html/typhoon/typhoon.html

Non-traditional settlement patterns and typhoon hazard on
contemporary Majuro Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands

You will find out about how the Marshall Islands have always been vulnerable to storms, and why so many people are now living on the most risky bit of land, that their ancestors would never have lived on. Those people have good reason to fear the next big storm. It has nothing to do with Global Warming or Sea Level Rise. The Island "Elders" bought all the good land with US compensation due to nuclear tests. The younger generation are now the ones living in mortal danger, and they want their compensation.

Why should the wealthy Elders pay to look after future generations when they can get their own compensation windfall payments by simply wailing on demand when a TV crew turns up?

Since you mention them, golf charlie, the Marshall Islands are a member of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, who sent 2 representatives to COP22. They're fully signed up to the climate change alarmism agenda.

A couple of paragraphs from FORTY-SIXTH PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM in 2015 read as follows:

"Climate Change
10. Leaders reiterated their concerns that climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihood, security and well-being of the peoples of the Pacific. Leaders called for the adoption of an ambitious and legally binding agreement at the 21st Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP21). They strongly endorsed the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Declaration on Climate
Change Action, attached as Annex 1, in advance of COP21.
11. Leaders extended the current two regional frameworks: the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change; and the Pacific Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management Framework for Action for one year."

Their website spouts all the usual jargon:

"In response to limited national capacities and an increasingly complex international environment, the focus of the Programme is to increase understanding of the challenges facing the region and use its expertise to assist Members in the development of appropriate national, sub-regional and regional interventions. In addition, the Programme partners with other development agencies to facilitate assistance on economic and trade measures to Members where no internal capacity exists within the Programme.

In order to respond effectively to the challenges posed by globalisation, the Programme supports the direct participation of Forum island countries in the global rule setting environment, for example, the WTO in Geneva and other inter-governmental organisations (IGOs).

The Programme assists Member states to improve their investment environments, enhance the competitiveness of small, micro and medium enterprises (SMMEs) and promote the flow of finance to new and existing businesses. The Programme provides policy and technical support aimed at improving public and private partnerships through collaboration with private sector organisations, including the Pacific Islands Private Sector Organisation (PIPSO), in economic development, trade and investment areas.

Some Forum Island Countries have limited national capacity to gather and disseminate data and information pertaining to their commercial, trade and investment interests. The Programme, through the Forum Trade Offices (FTOs), provides advice and support in order to stimulate trade, regionally and internationally, whilst looking to attract foreign investment into Forum Island Countries."

As usual the last few words seem to amount to "send us money." I'm sure they do some good work, but as always the climate change mantra is high on their agenda. For instance, they co-operated with Oxfam in producing a recent report entitled "AFTER PARIS: CLIMATE FINANCE IN THE PACIFIC ISLANDS":

http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/FULL%20REPORT%20-%20After%20Paris%20-%20Climate%20Finance%20in%20the%20Pacific%20Islands.pdf

They appear to receive finance from the Trade Advocacy Fund (TAF). TAF's website has a log oat the top saying "UK aid from the British people", has a link to DfID, and is managed by Crown Agents and Saana Consulting Ltd. From their website:

"Saana Consulting, based in London, specialises in providing high quality consultancy services in development cooperation, to governments, donor agencies, NGOs and private businesses around the world. Our focus areas are international trade & competitiveness; regional integration; intellectual property reform & capacity building; aid effectiveness and evaluation; and media & communications, and we provide services for programme design and management, training and institutional development and policy and legal reforms. Saana Consulting was established in 2003 and can draw on an international network of experts with many years of experience in consulting and policy analysis, project design and appraisal, evaluation and performance assessment and training and workshop management. We currently have nine full-time staff working in our offices in North London. Saana is above all, results orientated. We work in small custom-built teams to give our clients the best results. We invest time and resources in getting to know your organisation and building relationships with the key players. We are confident that our wide experience in diverse fields, and with a variety of clients, gives us a distinct advantage and this is reflected in the track record of our corporate team and in the quality assurances we offer to all our clients."

To mix my metaphors, what a web - so many snouts - so many troughs. And again we see the UK taxpayer picking up a bill.

Mark Hodgson, the Marshall Islands are a disaster waiting to happen. News crews know exactly which shanty towns have been built, almost to the water's edge, on the low lying land that will be inundated WHEN the next typhoon strikes.

When river flooding or storm surges hits the UK, there are normally modern homes, mobile home residential parks, and holiday let mobile homes and caravans swept off the land, or flooded out.

Whether Marshall Islands or in the UK, the good land is owned and occupied, and has been for centuries. These disasters ARE inevitable, and have nothing to do with Global Warming, but human greed and desperation.

Mark Hodgson, some interesting reading on Global Warming finance.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/23/the-command-control-center-of-climate-alarmism/

It all gets a bit sinister with some of the allegations that have been made by some of the Global Warming protagonists.

John Shade, hypocrisy amongst the Global Warming racketeers does extend to accusing everyone else of conspiracy theories.

It is about time the US RICO Law was put into action correctly, not the sham that so many conspired to corrupt..

Thanks for the link. Climate Action Network certainly seem to be major players, especially at COP22, being among the biggest attendees in their various forms:

Climate Action Network - Europe sent 17 delegates.

Climate Action Network - Latin America sent 7 delegates.

Climate Action Network Australia sent 4 delegates.

Climate Action Network Canada sent 6 delegates.

Climate Action Network International sent 46 delegates.

Climate Action Network Southeast Asia sent one delegate.

That's a total of 81 delegates. They're probably going to be worth looking at in some detail when Christmas is out of the way.

Climate Action Network- Europe has a Board of Directors, which is appointed by its General Assembly.

As of April 2016, the Board is comprised of:

Celine Charveriat (interim chair), Executive Director at Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)

Karla Schoeters, (interim treasurer), Independent

Petr Hlobil, Operation Director, CEE Bankwatch, Czech Republic

Reinhold Pape, Policy Officer, Air Pollution and Climate Secretariat (AirClim), Sweden

Nikos Charalambides, Executive Director, Greenpeace Greece

Sven Harmeling, Climate Change Advocacy Coordinator, Care International

Bernd Nilles, Secretary General, CIDSE International

Christiane Averbeck, Director, Klima-Allianz, Germany

Imke Lübbeke, Head of Climate and Energy Team, WWF European Policy Office.

In other words, a bunch of the usual suspects. Perhaps not surprisingly, they're very interested in Climate Finance.

"A key piece to the climate and sustainable development puzzle is the role of international financial support and means of implementation, which are needed to address climate crises. As the number of challenges posed by climate change grow, so must the level of support which is going to the people who are impacted.

An international agreement to provide climate finance has been established to do just that. While development funding continues to assist actions on issues such as health, education and governance, climate finance should be delivered to help countries take on more recent problems directly associated with climate change. As set out in the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the provision of new and additional resources for enhanced action on mitigation, adaptation, technology development and capacity-building should be delivered to enhance climate action.

Bearing in mind the needs and commitments set out in the climate convention, it is essential that the EU ramps up its support for developing countries, both to enhance key development goals and to build climate change resilience and adaptation on the ground. This support is key to ensure that people can meet their development needs through low-carbon solutions."

Their climate finance page has a section called "learn more" with articles headed "The concept of Climate Finance"; "Innovative Sources of climate finance"; "Useful Climate Finance & Development Resources" etc etc.

2015 income was provided by the European Climate Foundation (37.4%); European Commission (21.2%); and Belgian Government 11.6%. Others if you're interested, at http://www.caneurope.org/about-us/can-europe-s-funding

So, more money from the taxpayer.