A
CTION ON ADAPTATIONT
HE SCALE OF THE CHALLENGE ANDREQUIRED
RESPONSES
A position paper by Climate Action Network International
The Bonn negotiations 2008 must deliver substantial progress on adaptation in order to stay on track to deliver a global deal in Copenhagen in 2009.
The Bali Action Plan has put adaptation at an equal footing with mitigation in the negotiations. Without urgent action on mitigation some nation states will be unable to adapt. Strong outcomes on finance and technology are also essential for meaningful adaptation and mitigation strategies to be achieved.
Voluntary action from developed countries to support the most vulnerable and least developed countries has been woefully inadequate to date. The costs of adaptation in developing countries alone will run into tens of billions of dollars per year: industrialised countries as donors, and carbon-market instruments implemented under the Kyoto Protocol, have delivered only a tiny fraction of these costs1. The sums available are not even sufficient to implement the most urgent adaptation activities in developing countries as defined in National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). This failure of voluntary action must be overcome in order to reach a new climate change agreement.
1.
D
EVELOPING A SHARED VISION OF POST-2012
ON ADAPTATIONA shared vision must build on the clear objective that a new global climate change agreement be adequate to tackle climate change, particularly the immediate threat posed to LDCs, SIDS and drought and flood-prone areas in Africa. This requires significantly increased and enhanced action on adaptation by all Parties, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities, and transcending the failure of unfulfilled voluntary commitments.
Key demands:
• All Parties, particularly developed country parties, must join forces to limit global temperature rise to well below 2° C (above pre-industrial levels). There is a limit to adaptation, beyond which the very existence of certain nation states, particularly SIDS, is threatened. In the most vulnerable countries such limits are close. Global mitigation efforts have to be adequate to allow each country to develop effective adaptation strategies. • There must be a vision to develop coherency in adaptation action under the UNFCCC, which includes
identifying adequate and predictable funding mechanisms that can be operationalised effectively and rapidly.
1 A rough estimate is about 1% of the expected demand, see Germanwatch 2008: Adaptation to climate change – where do
we go from Bali? Briefing paper.
This paper highlights issues and demands important to reach a fair and equitable climate deal on 1. developing a shared vision on adaptation in a post-2012 world
2. scaling-up of effective adaptation funding 3. adaptation and technology
4. near-term action on adaptation (before 2012)
• Limit global temperature rise to below 2°C (above pre-industrial levels) to enable adaptation where possible
• Integrate adaptation into the post 2012 agreement in a coherent and comprehensive manner • Put the most vulnerable people and communities at the heart of efforts to deliver adaptation • National governments must integrate climate risk adaptation and sustainable development
• Countries with high actual and historic emissions as well as high capacity to meet the costs must bear the major responsibility for generating funds for adaptation. Developed countries must meet their responsibility to cover additional adaptation financing needs in developing countries by leading on a series of domestic and international policy measures.
• Each country must take responsibility for preparing its national priorities and plans for adaptation, with adequate financial and technical support. These plans should form the basis for obtaining funding for adaptation.
• To ensure that adaptation is effectively implemented, greater understanding and defining of adaptation, and linking it closely with disaster risk reduction and sustainable development, is crucial.
• Developing countries accessing funds should ensure that the most vulnerable communities are at the centre of and benefit from their adaptation policies, and that these policies reflect the needs and interests of both women and men. This is a key part of fulfilling commitments they have made to secure basic human rights of their citizens, such as the rights to food, health, water and shelter.
• Integrating climate risk management in existing national development plans and processes should be the main approach for adaptation. Funding mechanisms to be developed under the post 2012 agreement should prioritise this approach over ‘stand alone’ funding and projects.
• Future international action on adaptation must strengthen the capacity of developing country governments, sectors and civil society to understand adaptation needs, identify priorities and undertake adaptation actions, in order to contribute to national and local sustainable development.
2.
S
CALING-
UP OF EFFECTIVE ADAPTATION FUNDINGA broad consensus is emerging that the scale of funding needed for adaptation in developing countries will be tens of billions of US dollars annually.2 The existing architecture of voluntary funding by developed countries and the actually existing instruments of the carbon markets, which currently are raising just a few millions dollars for adaptation purposes, has not delivered sufficient resources so far, and is unlikely to do so in the future. Additional sources and mechanisms for raising the scale of funding needed must be a key element of a post-2012 agreement. Building consensus and identifying workable solutions well before Copenhagen is urgently needed to ensure the financial mechanisms are in place when large-scale needs for adaptation funding are presented. There are several broad categories of proposed alternatives to scale-up adaptation funding:
• Proposals linked to climate policies addressing greenhouse gas emissions and based on the ‘polluter pays principle’. These can be either international or domestic levies or other mechanisms.
International:
Auctioning of quotas of national emission budgets (Assigned Amount Units) International air travel levy
International bunker fuel and/or international aviation fuel levy
An Adaptation Fund levy to Joint Implementation and Emission Trading under the Kyoto Protocol
Domestic:
2 Different studies estimate the additional costs between $28-86bn annually by 2015-2030, depending on the precise
definition of adaptation and which countries are included, see e.g. UNFCCC 2007: Investment and financial flows to address climate change, UNDP 2007: Human Development Report, Oxfam 2007: Adapting to climate change. What is needed in poor countries and who is going to pay.
• Funding mechanisms under UNFCCC must overcome the failure of voluntary contributions, through measurable, reportable and verifiable funding obligations linked to responsibility and capacity to pay
• Developing country governments have to ensure that most urgent underlying and growing vulnerabilities are addressed in adaptation funding, targeted at most vulnerable communities • All Parties should come forward with more concrete proposals to generate resources in
Use of revenues from auctions of emission permits in domestic climate regulation Carbon levy
• Risk sharing mechanisms through micro-insurance based ‘weather hedges’. Private insurance to aid disaster recovery is likely to remain too expensive for many poor communities but options to co-finance risk-sharing instruments for most vulnerable people based on international polluter pays or capability concepts could be viable. 3
Key demands to generate the likely needed resources through a combination of funding instruments:
• A post-2012 agreement must include a more coherent and effective funding architecture which delivers adequate, sustainable and predictable resources for adaptation. These resources must be additional to the commitment made (and mostly not fulfilled) by developed countries to provide 0.7% of their Gross Domestic Product for Official Development Assistance (ODA).
• Funding for adaptation must be targeted on the most vulnerable communities so that the new climate change agreement serves those most affected by climate change.
• A mechanism should be implemented which leads to clear measurable, reportable and verifiable funding obligations from Parties, based on criteria and indicators that operationalise the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, in particular actual and historic emissions and capabilities.
•Parties should channel their contributions through the Adaptation Fund rather than through “classical” multilateral funding instruments of ODA, since adaptation is not about aid, but about compensating for the harm caused by emissions. By its very nature, adaptation funding should be delivered as grants covering the full additional costs of adaptation.
• It is necessary to explore options to co-finance risk-sharing instruments for most vulnerable people based on international polluter pays or capability concepts. The Nairobi Work Programme could serve as an initial forum for this analysis, with further consideration of concrete concepts in the AWG-LCA and the SBI.
• We emphasize that new, financial mechanisms and instruments for adaptation created outside the Convention should coordinate with the mechanism developed under the Convention, with an emphasis on transparency, efficiency, and equity, and should incorporate governance shared equitably between developed and developing countries.
• Resources generated through international mechanisms should be used to strengthen funding mechanisms under the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol, in particular to feed the Adaptation Fund.
• Parties are strongly encouraged to come forward with more concrete proposals on how they think the resources needed for adaptation (and likewise for mitigation) should be generated, based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. More proposals will help to develop political will and to define the technical questions that need to be answered. We welcome the creative thinking recently undertaken by some Parties on addressing funding for adaptation, e.g. Mexico and Tuvalu.
The greatest need for financial and technical support in adaptation is in the poorest and most vulnerable communities. Adaptation financing must be allocated in consultation with communities and with community participation in the development of plans, programs and projects to increase community-level resilience to the adverse impacts of climate change. This is a key responsibility of governments in affected countries, but there is an obligation of other countries to support these activities in a meaningful way.
Key demands to ensure effectiveness in adaptation funding:
• International funding mechanisms and decision-making processes must be open, transparent and accountable to local communities, affected stakeholders, and elected representatives. Stakeholder consultations must be held at both the local and national levels in affected countries.
• We call on developing country governments to ensure that adaptation funding is spent on the most urgent underlying and growing vulnerabilities of their population, and is informed by successful community-based experiences in vulnerability reduction.
• Integrating climate risk reduction or climate proofing in the development processes of countries is the best approach to reduce the risks of climate change. Funding mechanisms should prioritise this process over ‘stand alone’ adaptation projects. Governments must ensure that assessment, planning and implementation is undertaken as part of – rather than separate from – existing processes and institutional arrangements. • Developing country Parties need to be accountable for the management of adaptation resources, supported
by the UNFCCC process, by ensuring decision making processes and expenditure decisions are open to scrutiny by public and stakeholders. The possibility of an institutional mechanism in each recipient country to facilitate the coordination of adaptation and the management of funds from national and international sources should be explored.
• All Parties need to engage in a process to evaluate needs for adaptation assistance, to allocate responsibility for funding adaptation, to establish timetables, to measure progress, and to make recommendations for further action.
3. ADAPTATION AND TECHNOLOGY
The increased application and transfer of technologies that facilitate adaptation should be an integral part of a post-2012 outcome. While there is a place for large-scale technologies for certain national-level adaptation needs such as flood control, addressing the adaptation needs of the most vulnerable communities in many cases requires access to knowledge, locally available low-cost strategies and “soft” technologies. Many high-tech large-scale technologies, for example some early warning systems, can only be effective if properly connected to the vulnerable communities. Determining measures to plug such communication gaps should be a priority. There are already many proven technologies available that facilitate adaptation in key areas such as water, agriculture, tourism, coastal area management. Knowledge exchange and building organisational capacities is vital to ensure successful application in specific local contexts. Evidence for what works is based on project-level or research programme experiences: scaling-up requires scaling-up from community level through district and regional government and top-down decentralisation of funding from government to community level, engaging the private sector and civil society.
Key demands on technologies in adaptation:
Policies and enabling instruments should be guided by the objectives of:
• targeting those communities that are particularly at risk from climate change and climate variability, and ensuring measures reflect the needs and interests of both women and men;
• prioritising sustainable development benefits for many vulnerable people over large-scale stand-alone infrastructure investments;
• scaling up tested approaches for reducing the risks and adapting to climate variability; • facilitating south-south learning and exchange;
• engaging the private sector and civil society where they can play a role in enhancing and accelerating adaptation and the dissemination of adaptation technologies.
A key role of the post-2012 process is to support developing country governments in increasing their capacities: • to assess the effectiveness of existing adaptation technologies,
• to facilitate modifications of existing adaptation technologies including scaling up;
• to facilitate/accelerate the deployment and diffusion of current, new and innovative technologies (including cooperation on research and development);
• Dissemination of many proven adaptation technologies must be scaled-up through South-South and North-South-South technology transfer
• Supporting developing countries in increasing their adaptation technology capacity is crucial • Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of technology transfer is equally as important
• to assess potentially adverse effects of adaptation technologies that may increase vulnerabilities or lead to maladaptation.
Activities and negotiations under the UNFCCC on technology transfer in adaptation should:
• ensure that adequate funding and means are available for the transfer of adaptation technologies including to the most vulnerable communities;
• identify and analyse existing and potential new resources and vehicles to support the development, deployment, diffusion and transfer of technology in developing countries and assess gaps and barriers to the use of and access to these resources;
• contribute to monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of technology transfer, e.g. through performance indicators to be developed under the SBSTA;
• take actions to ensure that Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) will not form a barrier to the deployment of adaptation technology. Developing countries should be able to use and spread the best available technology to adapt to climate change and to prevent further damages, in particular for those people most vulnerable to climate change. Therefore they should not have to rely solely on open source technologies, but also be able to easily access patented technologies in a flexible and affordable manner;
• Avoid unsustainable development approaches, such as built-in sterility in seeds or genetically modified organisms that could cross-pollinate with local plant populations.
4.
N
EAR-
TERM ACTION ON ADAPTATION(
BEFORE2012)
Climate change adaptation requires a broad multi-sectoral approach including the re-shaping and re-designing of all development to be climate change resilient and to follow low carbon pathways, as well as enabling people and governments to prepare for climate-related hazards, such as extreme weather events (in particular floods, droughts and storms).
The full and effective implementation of the Convention with regard to adaptation is still not being achieved. Scaled-up near-term action on adaptation before 2012 is urgently needed to support those communities and countries most at risk from climate change and current climate variability. A key tool under the Convention to identify priorities has been the process for formulating National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) in LDCs. However, implementation is yet to happen. The amount needed for full implementation in 50 LDCs is estimated to be between $1 and 2 billion; of this, just $163 million has been pledged, and much less - $63 million - has been delivered to the LDCF so far. Now is the time to review the provisions for NAPAs.
Key demands
• Developed countries have to deliver financial resources to the Least Developed Country Fund (LDCF) that are sufficient to immediately implement adaptation priorities, in particular the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). This requires firstly, the honouring of existing pledges, and secondly the delivery of the additional funds required ($1-2bn) .
• An accelerated and simplified funding procedure for full NAPA implementation must be developed. GEF (the Council and the Secretariat) must be subject to greater accountability in the raising and delivery of these funds.
• Scaled-up near-term action before 2012 is crucial for a successful post-2012 process • Delivery of financial resources by developed countries has to be increased substantially and
immediately
• All Parties should work to develop the Adaptation Fund as a firm institutional footing for adaptation funding
• Non-LDCs developing country Parties should be encouraged to apply the NAPA methodology to their circumstances, to assess expected costs of implementing urgent and immediate adaptation needs and facilitating its implementation in planned manner.
• Governments must use the guidance of the Hyogo Framework for Action on Disaster Risk Reduction 2005 to facilitate a comprehensive, system-wide risk-reducing approach to climate change adaptation.4
• International organisations and reinsurance companies should make Climate-related data available to countries, regions and communities at risk.
• Tools that have proven to be effective in dealing with the weather-related hazards that will be exacerbated by climate change should be widely adopted in developing strategies for climate change adaptation. These include vulnerability and risk assessments, early warning systems, land-use planning and building code regulation, and building of institutional capacities.
• A gender-sensitive, social contextual understanding of climate change should complement meteorological based climate change scenarios when planning adaptation measures.
• In its second phase, The Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation (NWP) must prioritise capacity building and research on those matters linked to adaptation that are essential for the implementation of the Bali Action Plan. The NWP could be mandated to investigate suggestions from some Parties to establish regional knowledge centers undertaking research and development on: appropriate modalities for North-South and South-South Cooperation; diffusion of technologies; and the creation of a database, with partners and particularly intergovernmental agencies, of adaptation activities and experienced stakeholders.
• All Parties should support the work of the Adaptation Fund Board to give it a firm institutional footing for channeling funds, including from innovative mechanisms, into activities that increase the adaptive capacities of the most vulnerable people.
• The Adaptation Fund Board should develop criteria for disbursing and monitoring of the funds which will ensure that the most vulnerable communities’ adaptation needs are prioritized.
