Adaptation Issues under the Convention and Protocol

Friends of the Earth, 2006

This briefing paper aims to provide an overview of the issues relating to 'adaptation' – projects and programs undertaken to reduce the vulnerability of southern countries to the impacts of climate change – within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC is the international multilateral agreement on climate change to which 165 states are signatory. The Kyoto Protocol is the agreement on how to reduce global emissions that has been negotiated under the UNFCCC.

The 12^th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC and 2^nd Meeting of the Parties (MOP) to the Kyoto Protocol will be held in Nairobi from the 6^th to the 17^th of November 2006. These are the annual negotiating meetings of the Convention and Protocol. This paper will provide background information on adaptation for Friends of the Earth campaigners to lobby and respond to issues that are raised during the negotiations.

adaptation as part of three thematic areas of UN negotiations (mitigation, decarbonisation, adaptation)

The CAN International Future Framework for the post 2012 regime is based on scientific and socio-economic research which establishes three parallel tracks as the basis for future action. The first track, the Kyoto track follows the basis of the Protocol with much deeper absolute targets for the current list of Annex 1 countries. The second, decarbonisation track involves the larger developing countries embarking on a lower emissions pathway toward sustainable development and meeting climate change, poverty, energy security and development goals. Commitments should be based on a set of equitable criteria and undertaken in a step by step, sector led basis. The least developed countries would not be asked to make such commitments. The third, adaptation track where the most vulnerable countries to climate change must be given support and funds to be able to adapt to the consequences of the warming that we are already committed to.

The majority of work has been focused on the 'mitigation' track and given overarching need for the global north to reduce emissions in recognition of the high per capita emissions over the past 150 years, such priority is understandable. However rights to sustainable development, the emissions footprint of emerging countries and the extreme vulnerability of the world's poor to climate change, decarbonisation and adaptation is increasing in emphasis in international lobbying and campaign work on climate change.

definition of adaptation

Adaptation and vulnerability reduction was defined at the Barbados Seminar on Adaptation to Climate Change and Managing Disaster Risk in the Caribbean and South-East Asia (2003) as “program or project work to increase the strength of social, economic and natural system to both the short term impacts of current climate variability and long term impacts of human induced climate change”. This work is essential given that human greenhouse gas emission will continue to affect the climate for the coming 50-100 years due to the lag time of gases in the atmosphere, and flow on effects of higher temperatures such as sea level rise. It should be noted that there is no definition of adaptation in UNFCCC text which leaves negotiations on this issue ambiguous.

Under the current Kyoto Protocol agreement for the first commitment period (2008-2012) greenhouse gas emissions will result in slight reductions of 5% from that of 20 years prior. Friends of the Earth is campaigning to ensure that northern governments take sufficient action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, however climate change and global temperature increase is already with us. It is imperative that we ensure that the basic human and development rights of those most vulnerable to climate change are protected.

Adaptation, resilience building or vulnerability reduction work requires assessment of projected impacts of climate change at each location; understanding existing social, economic and environmental vulnerability; prioritising projects for each location; and planning and implementation in a manner which engages grass roots communities and organisations to ensure that projects are appropriate. Additionally, local government must ensure that infrastructure and services for the community are appropriately integrated with adaptation programs and national government must ensure financing, legislative and policy support for project and program outcomes.

While the majority of work on adaptation will ultimately need to be carried out at the grass roots to regional and national level, the international negotiations are essential for leveraging funds, technical and monitoring support for adaptation programs. The international forum also offers opportunity for nations to share information and experiences to increase adaptation 'know-how'.

Adaptation obligations under the Conference (UNFCCC) and Kyoto Protocol

There is clear guidance within the UNFCCC of the differentiated responsibilities of Parties (signatories) to address the impacts of climate change:

Firstly, as climate change will affect all nations it recognised in 4.1 (e) of the UNFCCC (Convention) that all Parties have a responsibility to “[c]ooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change”.

In keeping with principles of equity, Article 3.1 of the Convention commits developed countries to “take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof”. (emphasis added)

Article 4.5 of the Convention obligates developed country Parties to support technologies and capacities originating from developing country parties, via financing and technological support. Inclusion of the term 'endogenous' in Article 4.5 indicates that developing countries are best able to assess their needs, based on existing knowledge and technology within the country.

Finally, 4.8 of the Convention all parties will “give full consideration to the funding, insurance and transfer of technology needs” of developing country parties “from the adverse impacts of climate change and/or the implementation of response measures.”

current adaptation funding

During the seventh session of the COP, three 'adaptation' funds were established, two of them in the Convention and one for the Kyoto Protocol:

1. The Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) finances concrete adaptation activities, especially projects on water resources management, land management, agriculture, health, infrastructure development, fragile ecosystems such as mountain ecosystems, and coastal area integrated management. Operational Entity: Global Environment Fund (the GEF)

2. The Least-Developed Countries Fund (LDC Fund) is dedicated to least-developed countries. It finances the same activities as the Special Fund for Climate Change. Least-developed countries have access to expedition procedures for the approval of funding to support the implementation of projects in the context of National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). Operational Entity: Global Environment Fund (the GEF).

3. The Adaptation Fund (AF) finances concrete adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are signatories of the Kyoto Protocol. The funds are raised via a levy on Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs), credits that are generated from projects under the Clean Development Mechanism. Operational Entity: currently being negotiated.

The GEF also operates the Strategic Priority on Adaptation (SPA) from the GEF Trust Fund. Any program from the Trust is bound by the GEF recently adopted “Resource Allocation Framework” (RAF) assessment criteria, which prioritises existing capacity to implement projects and project outcomes of 'global environmental benefit' - in the climate change focal area, this means GHG reductions. Parties are concerned that the RAF conditions of 'incremental costs' and global environmental benefit will affect the operation of the SCCF and LDC funds. The impacts of the RAF on convention adaptation funds was requested to be included in the annual GEF report to the COP, and this assessment should be included in the 2006 report.

COP11 COP/MOP 1: emphasis that climate change is real and now!

The 2005 COP/MOP was unique as several parties made statements in the High Level Segment¹ of the meeting on urgency of adaptation work to reduce vulnerability, as climate change is already affecting people and the environment. This led many parties to emphasize the need to increase funding for adaptation and vulnerability reduction, and streamline access to funds particularly for the 48 Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States that are signatory to the UNFCCC.

current adaptation issues under negotiation (2006 and beyond)

• operating agency for adaptation funds

The funds under the UNFCCC (SCCF and LDC Fund) are to be managed by the GEF as the 'operating entity' which acts under the guidance of the UNFCCC in terms of assessment of project proposals, priority program areas, of allocation of funds and reporting mechanisms to the back to the COP of the operating entity's activities. Although GEF staff have clarified that the RAF will not apply to UNFCCC or Protocol adaptation funds, the fact that the RAF determines allocation of existing GEF Trust Funds is of concern to many parties. As such, the COP requested that the GEF include in its report to the COP how the RAF is likely to affect funding available to developing countries to meet their obligations under the convention. This will enable parties to keep track of their concerns over RAF conditions of incremental costs and global environmental benefit restricting access to the SCCF and LDC Fund.

The operating entity for the Adaptation Funds which is a Protocol fund, is currently being negotiated with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) favoured by many due to the experience of the GEF to manage multi-lateral environmental funds and the two convention funds. Many of the LCDs, the Group of 77 and China (G77+ China) and SIDS parties perceive it as essential that adaptation programs and funds to be country driven. The dominance of the GEF Council by what is essentially 'donor' northern countries has raised a high level of concern. The G77+China have been advocating for a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the COP/MOP and the GEF to clearly distinguish the Adaptation Fund from the GEF Trust Funds. LDCs and SIDS have also been pushing for avoidance of onerous operational policies and COP/MOP authority over administration of the funds.

• sufficiency of adaptation funds

The two 'convention' or UNFCCC funds, the SCCF and LDC Fund, are funded through voluntary contributions, to which many nations including Australia and the United States have yet to make any contributions to these funds. To date the contributions fall dramatically short of the funding required to fulfill adaptation needs reported in only five of the 48 LCDs and SIDS “National Adaptation Programs of Action” (NAPAs). The tables below summarises fund contributions to UNFCCC funds as at 30 April 2006 and assessment on need based on 5 NAPAs published on the UNFCCC website.

Table 1: NAPA Estimates of Adaptation Costs

Table 2: Contributions to UNFCCC Funds

As can clearly be seen in the above tables the funds available from the UNFCCC adaptation funds dwarf the assessment of need from only 5 of the 48 national assessments of adaptation requirements from the LDCs. The World Bank recently estimated that globally climate change adaptation was likely to be in the order of $10-$40 billion per year, with a third of this to be sourced from public finance². Reliance on voluntary contributions to these funds is unlikely to yield a dramatic increase in funds for adaptation required.

The Protocol Adaptation Fund is not yet in operation and will be predominately funded by a 2% levy on Certified Emissions Reductions (CERs) generated CDM projects³. A recent media release from the UNFCCC estimated that the CDM was likely to generate 12 billion dollars of carbon credits (CERs) by 2012⁴. A simple calculation of 2% of these credits is an estimated 240 million dollars in funds for the Adaptation Fund⁵. However, it is unlikely that large quantities of funds in the short term as the operation of the fund is yet to be negotiated and CDM is in early stages of operation. The operation of the Adaptation Fund is likely to be a significant issue negotiated at the Nairobi COP/MOP 2.

The sufficiency of adaptation funds is clearly a significant issue which needs to be addressed. There are a range of suggestions for increasing the contributions adaptation funds such as:

1. expanding the CER (certified emissions reduction) levy beyond the Clean Development Mechanism to international emissions trading and Joint Implementation activities

2. put a tax or levy on 'luxury' emissions such as flying – aviation emissions are not currently included in the Kyoto Protocol

3. carbon intensity tax

4. mandatory contributions from Annex I countries.

There is also interest in the option of insurance to cover the costs of climate change impacts, although discussions on insurance and adaptation are in very early stages.

• access to adaptation funds

The existing adaptation funds are only accessible to developing countries with specific attention to:

1. Small Island Countries

2. Countries with low-lying coastal areas

3. Countries with arid and semi-arid areas, forested areas and areas liable to forest decay

4. Countries prone to natural disasters

5. Countries with areas liable to drought and desertification

6. Countries with areas of high urban atmospheric pollution

7. Countries with areas of high fragile ecosystems, including mountainous ecosystems

8. Countries whose economies are highly dependent on income generated from from the production , processing and export and/or consumption of fossil fuels and associated energy-intensive products; and

9. Landlocked and transit countries

• 5 year work program on impacts, vulnerablity and adaptation to climate change

Adopted at COP11 in 2005, the five year work program on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation is likely to be used as guidance for the operation of the SCCF and LCD Fund. The objective for the program is as follows:

“...to assist all Parties, in particular developing countries, including the least developed countries and small island developing States, to improve their understanding and assessment of impacts, vulnerability and adaptation, and to make informed decisions on practical adaptation actions and measures to respond to climate change on a sound, scientific, technical and socio-economic basis, taking into account current and future climate change and variability.”

The program has been split into two thematic areas of impacts and vulnerability assessment activities and adaptation activities, reflecting the split within the program negotiations between 'stocktaking' and assessment activities as the former and on-the-ground adaptation activities as the latter. The US and other northern governments preferred 'stocktaking' whereas LCDs and SIDS were adamant on the need to adopt a learning-by-doing approach to pilot adaptation projects.

It is clear that many of G77 parties feel that adaptation work is being stalled. Given that many LDCs are in the process of completing their NAPAs which is a thorough assessment of impacts, vulnerability and adaptation priorities, there is a urgent need to start implementing adaptation programs on the ground rather than requiring further assessment. The Convention obligates developed countries to support this through technology transfers, financing and insurance. The COPs provide valuable forums to share information, skills and assess the effectiveness of adaptation projects and this should be encouraged as the priority for this program of work.

Gender, Indigenous Peoples and adaptation

As part of its commitment to securing sustainable, just and equitable societies, FoEI believes that there is an urgent need for the international response to climate change to incorporate a gender and Indigenous peoples perspective in all analysis and proposals, including on issues relating to adaptation.

The gender-specific nature of human beings’ relation to the environment and natural resources, in terms of access, control and knowledge, has diverse implications for women’s adaptive capacity to the impacts of climate change. Adaptation programs need to be aware of women’s differential capacity to cope with climate change, both in terms of their specific needs and risks arising from the gender roles assigned to them by society and in terms of their specific knowledge that can contribute to more effective solutions. In particular, poor women’s lack of access to and control over natural resources, technologies and credit mean that they generally have fewer resources to cope with the impacts of climate change. On the other hand, women’s knowledge and experience of maintaining biodiversity represents an important contribution to locally-effective adaptation strategies.

Indigenous peoples are similarly at greater vulnerability to climate change impacts because of limited opportunity to control resources and technology and higher reliance on the surrounding environment for food, water and other lifestyle resources. Indigenous peoples are also more likely to be outside of the formal economic system, working and trading through non-market networks; and are likely to have a greater knowledge of ecological systems of their country than Western scientists.

NAPAs and pilot adaptation projects should include gender-sensitive and Indigenous-sensitive risk mapping, in order to come up with locally effective solutions that take into account gender differences in vulnerabilities. It is important that such mapping be a participative process in which women themselves identify their own vulnerabilities. Similarly, early warning systems should pay more attention to the potential role of women’s and Indigenous networks in developing informal warning systems that will effectively reach beyond the formal public arena.