Tag: Adaptation

We stand at the precipice of what could be the final stroke of the LCA at COP18 in Doha, and the conversation is turning ever more to the question of how political decisions for various elements of the LCA that have not been fully resolved will be handled post-COP18. ECO sees that the discussion on technology transfer, which cuts across mitigation and adaptation, provides a stark view of what's at stake if the LCA's closing is not properly done, in the light of the sometimes yawning gap between the understandings of developed and the developing countries. 

If you mark the IPCC Assessment Report 1 (1990) as the starting point, the discussion on technology transfer has been ongoing for more than two decades. That’s a lot of work to sit idle if the Technology Mechanism suddenly faced a lack of support, and a staggering missed opportunity to close the mitigation gap and address the growing need for climate adaptation.

As it now stands, the Technology Mechanism lacks full funding even on a short-term basis, its governance and reporting structure are incomplete, its linkages with other bodies inside the Convention are hampered by the chicken/egg dilemma, its cross-cutting support for NAMAs and NAPAs/NAPs is uncertain and ill-defined, and the conversation on what is likely the most political decision of all – how priorities are to be set within the TEC and CTCN – has barely been broached, if at all. Undoubtedly, some of these issues will be addressed and hopefully resolved in Doha, but some of them have little or no hope of finding true resolution in that timeframe, and some are likely to require ongoing political guidance.

As for funding, which must stand above all other issues in terms of a critical path forward, the organisation requested by COP17 to financially support the early operations of the CTCN failed to be chosen, and CTCN support disappeared with the nomination.

So how do we avoid leaving the CTCN – the technology mechanism's "boots on the ground" – up in the air?

As the shaman of Pride Rock, Rafiki, says: "It is time." Let's get those boots grounded with at least five years of interim public funding and let's go kick some adaptation and mitigation bootie!  Oh, and by the way, maybe we might also find a concrete way to ensure appropriate follow-up care for all the outstanding technology transfer and other LCA issues that risk being stranded?

ECO was feeling a bit nostalgic, what with all this talk about the LCA and what comes next. So, it dug through the ECO archives and came across this article from Bonn 2008 on what the LCA could deliver. ECO hopes it brings out the same mixed feelings for you as it did for ECO:

Bonn, Poznan and Beyond

Let’s not forget what’s at stake: if current emissions trends continue, global average temperatures will rise by around 3-7°C above preindustrial levels, with catastrophic consequences for all. 

Sometimes these negotiations are like listening to a group of people on a badly-leaking lifeboat arguing over who should actually start bailing as the water rises inexorably, when the obvious answer is that all should be doing what they can to avoid the boat sinking completely. Those with the greatest capacity should be bailing the hardest, sufficiently motivated by their historical responsibility to be doing their best to help keep the others afloat, and making sure everyone has access to the lifejackets.

 So what should you be doing? What can Bonn deliver to keep us from sinking? 

Parties need to reach a common understanding of what their shared vision is – how far up towards the rim of the boat they will allow the water to rise, as it were.

 The LCA needs to break out into contact groups on developed country mitigation, developing country mitigation, REDD, adaptation, technology and finance. What Parties want to see reflected in the Copenhagen agreement should be brought to the table here and now as concrete proposals, to allow sufficient time for their exploration and analysis by other Parties and Civil Society.

 ECO recognizes that the negotiations are complicated, with issues spread throughout the agenda and similar items appearing under both AWG and LCA. Parties need to trust each other and consolidate these building blocks. Remember, there will be a reevaluation exercise in Poznan. The most important thing is not where an issue is discussed, but that it is discussed, in a coherent and constructive way. 

ECO expects outcomes from the LCA far beyond Chair’s draft conclusions: but for contact groups to begin to produce actual draft negotiating texts that will define the real negotiating issues to be ready for negotiation in Poznan, to allow the work done in the Dialogue and in more recent discussions to be realized.

 The AWG should also be producing negotiating texts and beginning their refinement, so that there are bracketed texts on the table by Poznan.

 Delegates, to stop the boat sinking ever lower, don’t bail out of your (common but differentiated) responsibilities.

ECO applauds that the negotiations on loss and damage have managed to agree on draft conclusions here in Bonn. Despite the lack of movement in issues such as finance and emissions reductions, negotiators have achieved some better understanding on the issue of loss and damage. The conclusions recognise the role of slow-onset impacts like sea-level rise and ocean acidification, and non-economic losses, but also the importance of involving local communities in risk assessment processes.

A crucial achievement in Bonn has been the reaffirmation of the mandate that was given by the Durban decision, namely to explore a range of approaches and potential mechanisms, including an international mechanism, to address loss and damage.

Negotiators will need to continue working hard to figure out the functions and elements of such an international mechanism. Possible elements could include coordination, information assessment, climate risk insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory elements. The Doha outcome must recognize that climate change is not only a technical and political issue but also one of global climate justice. The outcome must further ensure that the international community starts to build up an adequate response to the multiple problems of loss and damage from climate change impacts.

In the next months, expert meetings will be held in all developing country regions. ECO thinks it is crucial that the process follows a needs-based approach. Key questions include: What is the scale of likely impacts and what are the main problems of loss and damage? What are major needs in the regions that have to be addressed? Where are local solutions sufficient and where can international mechanisms fill existing gaps? And what scale of response is required?

All Parties should work to improve their understanding of the problems and develop solutions. Submissions on the need and scale of the problem would help advance the issue. These can then provide a sound options-based approach for the negotiators coming to Doha. Recognising that much of the loss and damage debate has many questions is no reason not to move forward on developing options and solutions for international and local collaboration to tackle the challenge.

ECO can does not deny its frustration over the fact that many Parties are failing to deliver ambitious mitigation, even though they have agreed to limit warming below 2 degrees Celsius and are aware of the most recent science. They are thus positioning the planet on a course towards a world of increasing climate change loss and damage rather than a transition to a truly low-carbon and climate change-resilient world. Mitigation and adaptation are key to minimise loss and damage. But they are no longer sufficient.