Tag Archives: National Adaptation Plans

Outcomes COP23: Focusing on Addressing Climate Change in the Developing World

03 Sunday Jun 2018

Posted by in Climate Change, UNFCCC

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

The 23rd Conference of Parties (COP23) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was held in Bonn, Germany from November 6th to 17th, 2017. It was the first COP to be presided by a Small Island Developing State, with Fiji as its presidency, and was politically and technically important due to diverse reasons.

This article will focus on key aspects of the negotiations which present implications on the developing countries, and prioritises on issues such as adaptation, loss and damage and climate finance. It does not discuss in extensive detail the topics related to discussion as many articles published on COP23 focuses primarily on it, and allocates space for issues that have not been widely discussed and would play a role in addressing climate change in the developing world.

The article does not present itself as an exhaustive discussion on all aspects important to developing countries in addressing adverse impacts of climate change. However, it is compiled with the objective of highlighting outcomes that focus on the needs of the developing countries, aspects that will be crucial to regions such as the South Asian region, and the activities that will follow in 2018 to build on these outcomes.

Adaptation

Climate change adaptation plays a crucial role for developing countries, especially those most vulnerable to climate change. While mitigation of CO2 and other Green House Gases is important, countries that are already impacted by climate change need urgent adaptive measures. The discussions on adaptation at the climate change negotiations were focused on many tracks among which are the Nairobi Work Programme (NWP), the Adaptation Committee, the Adaptation Communications, National Adaptation Plans as well as issues relevant to finance for adaptation.

Adaptation Communications could be seen as a tool under the Paris Agreement that will contribute to highlighting the adaptation-related priorities, and support for adaptation. The progress of the discussions on the Adaptation Communications will be important for developing countries as it would highlight the need for reporting on adaptation efforts and support, as well as drawing interlinkages between the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction. However, the negotiations on the topic saw divergences among the developing and developed countries on the inclusion of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, national circumstances, and flexibility on reporting.

In addition to this, the discussions on NAPs was another key element for the developing countries. This is due to the discussions focusing on support provided through the Readiness and Preparatory Programme of the Green Climate Fund (GCF). Under the GCF Readiness Programme, developing countries are allocated up to USD 3 million per country for the formulation of national adaptation plans and/or other adaptation planning processes by NDAs or focal points[1]. The Readiness Programme is aimed to facilitate the development of NAPs with a focus on national priorities in developing adaptation measures to address impacts of climate change.  During the negotiations on NAPs, it was highlighted by developing countries that several hurdles were faced by them in accessing GCF Readiness Support. This included among others the lengthy time needed to get approval for Readiness Support. Further, it was noted that a very low number of approvals have been received for applications, and the importance of fast tracking and facilitating the access to finance for NAP readiness was emphasized, so as to contribute to addressing  the needs of developing countries related to climate change adaptation.

Climate Finance

As expected, climate finance plays a key role in the negotiations, with support for climate action being indispensable for vulnerable countries. The finance discussions could be deemed cross-cutting and featured  under the streams on long-term finance, finance under the NDCs, Transparency Framework and the Global Stocktake, finance through the GCF, GEF and Adaptation Fund, and the negotiations on the Standing Committee on Finance.

One of the key issues to be reiterated in the negotiations on climate finance was the commitment of developed countries to jointly mobilise US$100 billion per year by 2020, which was agreed to in 2009, in Copenhagen. The next round of updated biennial submissions are requested from developed countries and a summary report will be prepared through these submissions. The upcoming intersessions in May, 2018 will see the organizing of an in-session workshop  on the topic whereby a summary report will be prepared for COP 24, and  two assessments on climate finance will be published in 2018 and 2020 to provide further information on the status of climate finance under the process.

Under the negotiations on the GCF, it was reported that the Fund is truly operational and delivering on its mandate. However, it was noted that the accreditation remains a challenge for many entities that have sought to gain accreditation to the GCF. This triggered the review of the accreditation framework, which is considered a challenge by many entities.

Another topic of interest on climate finance are the negotiations on the Adaptation Fund. The Fund has been a cause of divergence in COP22 as well as COP23. The members countries of the Kyoto Protocol agreed in COP23 that the Fund shall serve the Paris Agreement, which removed the doubts on the placement of the Fund. Further, pledges were made to the Fund, which amounted to US $93.3 million, with new pledges from Germany amounting to 50 million. Similar pledges were made to the Least Developed Country Fund (LDCF) during the COP23 as well.

The developments on the climate finance discussions and the workshop to be held in May will be important to see the pathway for support for climate action in the world.

Loss and Damage

Finance for Loss and Damage was not a win that the developing countries received during the last COP. While developing countries see loss and damage as one of the pillars with mitigation and adaptation, at present climate finance does not cover Loss and Damage as does the other two pillars.

However, there were discussions on the Loss and Damage during the COP, and these focused on the work of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage (WIM), the 5 year rolling plan, and the setting up of the expert dialogue on loss and damage. The Suva Expert Dialogue on Loss and Damage will be organized during the upcoming May session, to be held in Bonn. The discussions on the topic would be important to developing countries to understand the ways in which the topic of Loss and Damage could play a key role in climate change actions, and how finance could be mobilized to address the losses and damages felt by the developing countries due to adverse impacts of climate change.

Dealing with Risk Transfer and Launch of InsuRelience Global Partnership

Two key developments that could be linked and marked to adaptation and the Loss and Damage discussions could be deemed as the mode for addressing risk transfer and the ways of insuring vulnerable communities against the impacts of climate change. While insurance for climate change has been a topic debate, and seen as a negative element in cases where the communities are requested to insure themselves which places an additional financial burden on them, the InsuRelience Global Partnership presented a different structure for risk management.

Funded by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) through a contribution of 110 million euros (US $125 million) the Partnership focuses on disaster risk finance, and provides insurance solutions with the aim of providing affordable insurance for vulnerable groups. Additional contribution to the Partnership was provided by the United Kingdom in the form of   £30 million (US $39 million) as commitment made in July 2017.[2] The  Partnership builds on the InsuResilience initiative founded during the German G7 Presidency in 2015, and aimed to providing insurance for an additional 400 million poor and vulnerable people in developing countries against climate risks by 2020. [3]

COP23 also saw the launch of the  Fiji Clearing House for Risk Transfer, and online resource aimed to provide access to vulnerable countries to  the best available information on affordable insurance and solutions. [4]However, the process contributing directly to vulnerable communities accessing information through the online resource provision remains vague. While a person with access to internet and resources could address one’s questions to the experts on the system, it is unlikely that a marginalized and vulnerable communities will be realistically be able to address their questions to experts and make decisions on how to address risks on climate change. While the launch of the platform is appreciated, for it to be realistically meeting its objective, more work will remain to be done at the ground level.

 

Progress in Agriculture

Agriculture has been a topic of divergence for over many years in the COP process. However, in COP23, the years of deadlock was terminated, with the countries reached an agreement on agriculture which aims to address food security, and impacts felt on agriculture through climate change impacts. This is considered as the first substantive outcome and COP decision in the history of the UNFCCC processes on agriculture.[5]

The agreement on agriculture at COP23 establishes the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture which focuses on developing cobenefit based actions on agriculture. This would mean that new actions and strategies will be implemented which focus on both  adaptation and mitigation focusing on both reduction of emissions and building of resilience in the agriculture sector.

The outcomes of COP23 on agriculture remain of great importance to countries of South Asia, and other developing countries as impacts of climate change are strongly felt on the small holder farmers, that contributes approximately 70% of the food production globally. Impacts felt on these farmers impact food security and increase existing vulnerabilities of communities of the region. Wish support of multiple actors, the small holder farmers of developing countries could build their resilience and face the impacts of climate change.

Wins for the Vulnerable

Gender negotiations in COP23 succeeded in developing a decision to develop a Gender Action Plan (GAP). This is developed with the aim to enhance the participation of women in the UNFCCC process and the implementation of the Paris Agreement.

Among activities that are highlighted under the Gender Action Plan are Activities capacity building, knowledge sharing and communication as well as integrating gender perspectives and enhanced knowledge on gender-responsive policy, planning and programming, gender balance and participation, gender-responsive implementation and means of implementation with improved social and gender-assessments and information, and direct access for grassroots women’s groups, and gender-responsive climate technologies. The GAP aims to integrate gender into the many levels of work in addressing climate change, including monitoring and evaluation of climate action.

The decision remains important to developing countries where women remain vulnerable to climate change, and where at most times their voices and concerns are not reflected in the decision-making processes. In highlighting the need for integrating gender into the climate change processes under the UNFCCC, it provides scope for women to engage more in climate change initiatives to contribute as well as to benefit from the actions taken to address climate change.

In addition to the GAP, the Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform was also a highlight of COP23 providing space for the indigenous communities to share experiences and best practices in addressing climate change.

From COP23 to COP24

2018 marks a key year for climate negotiations. With the Paris Rule Book to be finalized by COP24, negotiations on issues related to setting the framework for Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), reporting of adaptation efforts, transparency and MRV framework, elements of the global stocktake, and monitoring of compliance under the Paris Agreement which remain to be finalized.

In May, in Bonn, and in months leading to the COP24 in Katowice in Poland, the discussions will focus on finalizing the Rule Book, and enhancing and building on the outcomes, as well as the unresolved elements of COP23 such as climate finance discussions focusing on article 9.5 of the Paris Agreement, relating to developed countries reporting on their climate finance flows to developing countries which was left unresolved in COP23.

In order to benefit from these negotiations, it will be important for developing countries, to stay focused on the national and global priorities needed to address the sustainable development of their populations. It will be equally important for the developing countries to find avenues for integrating climate change and negotiations on climate change at the global level to the sustainable development priorities at the national and local level so as to prioritise on the needs of the vulnerable communities who are most affected by the impacts of climate change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] GCF Readiness Support, Retrieved from: https://www.greenclimate.fund/gcf101/empowering-countries/readiness-support

[2] $125 Million Announced for New Global Partnership to Provide Financial Protection against Climate Risks, Retrieved from: https://cop23.com.fj/125-million-announced-new-global-partnership-provide-financial-protection-climate-risks/

[3] Ibid

[4] Key Achievements from COP23, Retrieved from: https://cop23.com.fj/key-achievements-cop23/

[5] Countries Reach Historic Outcome on Agriculture, Retrieved from: https://cop23.com.fj/countries-reach-historic-agreement-agriculture/

National Adaptation Plans: Cancun to Paris, a Move Forward/ Step Back?

24 Tuesday Nov 2015

Posted by in ADP 2015, Climate Change, COP21, Uncategorized, UNFCCC

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

In 2010, at the 16th session of the Conference of Parties, the Cancun Adaptation Framework  (CAF) affirmed that adaptation and mitigation need to be addressed with the same level of priority.  The objective of the CAF provides for the enhancement of adaptation action, through international cooperation, and coherent consideration of matters relating to adaptation under the Convention. The ultimate objective of this being the reduction of vulnerability of communities to the impacts of climate change, and building resilience in developing countries especially those that are most vulnerable to climate change.

CAF & NAPs

CAF further introduced the national adaptation plans (NAPs), a key element to address adaptation at national level, as part of the five clusters introduced by the CAF. NAPs was introduced as a process to enable LDC Parties to formulate and implement adaptation actions at the national level. The CAF also invited other developing country Parties to employ modalities developed to support the NAPs.

Since Cancun, the NAPs further evolved through subsequent COP decisions. The adaptation actions are to be undertaken in accordance with the Convention, follow a country-driven, gender-sensitive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems. They are also to be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional and indigenous knowledge; and be undertaken with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant social, economic and environmental policies and actions. Finance for NAPs for LDCs was requested to be through the Least Developed Countries Fund, and for developing countries to be through the Special Climate Change Fund and the Green Climate Fund, based on country driven, and any preparatory efforts that exist in the country to implement the NAPs.

The question that remains is what role or importance is allocated to NAPs by the Draft Texts for Paris, and what outcomes could be expected for them, based on the documents proposed for negotiations. For the purpose of this article, the choice of language for commitment towards adaptation and NAPs have been considered as binding, and the “best-case” choice of text – using the “shall” bracketed options is considered.

 

COP21 Draft Text for the Agreement

 

Adaptation is included in Article 4 of the negotiating text. Among choices to be made that have grabbed the attention of many is the choice between global goal and long-term vision for adaptation. While agreeing that the global goal on adaptation is important, and that it needs to reflect the level of temperature based on the mitigation targets, and link that to the associated level of adaptation that would be needed, what remains missing in importance seems to be the NAPs in the text. While certain elements to be highlighted in NAPs, such as those of livelihoods, gender equality, economic diversification, ecosystems are reflected through options to be decided on, the direct reference to NAPs remain minute, and not reflecting the amount of time invested in the five years since Cancun to ensure that the formulation, and more importantly the implementation, of NAPs would be a key element in the progress of adaptation actions in countries.

 

The text of Article 4 provides for the need to support “national adaptation plans and other adaptation actions, in accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Convention,” and the option is left for Parties to decide whether it should be a binding commitment or non-mandatory. If one were to pick the option “shall” among those options proposed in the bracketed text, as mentioned above if assuming the most optimistic choice of language,  then the Least Developed Countries and the Small Island Developing Countries will be able to hold the developed countries responsible for the provision of support for the NAPs and adaptation actions in their countries.

 

Article 4.6 of the Draft Text caters again (with options as usual, and many a bracket) to mentioning the NAPs. However the previous text on NAPs, the reference to NAPs is listed as an option among others which do not necessarily include the “implementation” aspect that the NAPs include, once again allowing it to be left out of the Agreement. The text provides for the following:  “Each Party, in accordance with [Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention and] its national circumstances and priorities (shall) engage in [a] [national] adaptation planning [process], [including national adaptation plans,] and enhance other relevant plans, policies, actions and/or contributions.”

 

A simple analysis of the above option provides that:

  1. a) Engaging in NAPs, and support thereof, is not deemed to be a country commitment
  2. b) “Plans” is a word to be questioned as it would produce a “product”, which makes it likely that a commitment of support for its contents would be sought, as opposed to a more vague wording such as “planning”
  3. c) The word “including adaptations plans” gives Parties the belief that they could pick whether to embark on formulating a NAP or not, and that the choice is somehow for their own benefit, and that a NAP is not considered with sufficient importance that it needs to be allocated.
  4. d) There is also the option of not developing a NAP, but to continue planning, or enhancing plans and policies and other options that exist for Parties to address adaptation needs of the country.

 

Financing NAPs

 

The next mention of NAPs in the Draft Text is through the option on financing for adaptation under Article 4.  The text conspicuously lacks a mandate for international support to be provided by the UNFCCC’s financial mechanism.  Rather, it refers to bilateral support which is neither accountable to the COP nor of which additionality is fully traceable by the Parties.  Additionally, the text merely mentions “plans”, which need not specifically be understood to refer to the actual COP-endorsed NAPs:

 

“[Developed country Parties shall provide developing country Parties, taking into account the needs of those that are particularly vulnerable, with long-term, scaled-up, predictable, new and additional finance, technology and capacity- building, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Convention, to implement urgent, short-, medium- and long-term adaptation actions, plans, programmes and projects at the local, national, subregional and regional levels, in and across different economic and social sectors and ecosystems][Developed countries [shall][should] transfer technology, in particular for early warning systems through United Nations mechanisms in order to make it accessible for all].”

 

Not only do the options not explicitly mention NAPs, they also provide for it to be merged through wording provided and picked out from. It remains doubtful as to whether the intention of the textual proposal encompasses the objective of seeking finance for NAPs including their formulation for all developing countries, or whether the intention is to preserve the ambiguity that leads for finance needs for developing NAPs for all developing Parties to be left outside the commitments on finance by developed countries; the advantage of the wording being that finance for adaptation actions is provided may be interpreted to include and not be limited to NAPs, whereas the disadvantage being that it prevents countries from developing comparable products – plans that are holistic, and covering the needs at national level, based on the already-agreed COP guidelines, that would inevitably facilitate better adaptation which is inclusive, participatory, transparent and accountable.

 

The draft decision text requests the Adaptation Committee to take into account of the aggregate temperature level based on the mitigation section of the Agreement, and to refer to the impacts it would have on national adaptation planning in countries. It further emphasises the need for support for LDCs for implementing their NAPs, and the request to the GCF to expedite the process for accessing finance. The question thereby remains for those developing countries that wish to access adaptation finance, and not provided with support for formulating a NAP, or technical support for it. Would the assumption be that all countries are required to develop adaptation policies, and have undertakings under their Intended Nationally Determined Contributions, and thereby not provided additional funding for developing them, in turn making it not the issue of providing support for all developing countries to formulate and implement NAPs?

 

NAPs in Paris: A Step Back?

 

In Cancun and in subsequent decisions, NAPs evolved as a means for identifying country driven solutions for adaptation, as well as a way of accessing finance for adaptation for LDCs, as well as other developing countries including SIDS. Decision 3/CP.20 “recognizes that the process to formulate and implement national adaptation plans is fundamental for building adaptive capacity and reducing vulnerability to the impacts of climate change,” which is different to what is mentioned on NAPs in the COP21 texts.

 

It further adds that NAPs to be “continuous, iterative and long-term nature of the national adaptation plan process, and that … can serve as an important tool for ensuring a common understanding and for communicating progress made towards both reducing vulnerability and integrating climate change adaptation into national and development planning.”

 

In addition to this, in Lima the Parties decided that “there is a need to enhance the reporting on the process to formulate and implement the national adaptation plan,” and also noted “that there is a need to strengthen the existing reporting related to the process to formulate and implement national adaptation plans under the Convention.” An aspect that has been put to question in the COP21 texts, where NAPs are not emphasised, and nor seen as a key focus for reporting on adaptation. The negotiating process seems to be developing selective amnesia where previous gains on adaptation planning and implementation are concerned and is, accordingly, starting the same discussion from scratch, yet ironically with less aspiration than what had already been previously accomplished.

 

The same applies for financing NAPs. If the process is to be in accordance with the Lima Decision on NAPs as agreed by Parties, then the needs for financing of NAPs in LDCs as well as all developing countries need to be addressed. The decision in Lima provided that “the Adaptation Committee and the Least Developed Countries Expert Group, in collaboration with the Green Climate Fund, as an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism, consider how to best support developing country Parties in accessing funding from the Green Climate Fund for the process to formulate and implement national adaptation plans, and to report thereon to the Subsidiary Body for Implementation at its forty-second session.” The COP21 texts reverse this progress by narrowing this provision of finance only to the LDCs.

 

Where to in Paris?

 

In Paris, countries need to ensure that NAPs are a key element of the adaptation planning and processes of countries, and that the developing country Parties are all supported, specifically by the financial mechanism of the convention, to not only formulate NAPs, but also to implement them in a country driven manner which prioritises the developmental needs as well as increasing the resilience of communities of those countries. The NAPs should not be limited to the LDCs, and/or the SIDS (while special attention may very well need to be allocated to them due to their vulnerabilities) but to all developing countries as a step building on and consistent with the provisions of the Cancun Adaptation Framework. If this is not recognised, then the work on NAPs and adaptation will be moving 5 years behind, as opposed to moving to solve the global needs for adaptation through the Paris Agreement.

 

NAP

 

(c) Creative Commons