On Adaptation

Adaptation must be central to the new deal, everyone agrees. Differences arise when the issue of financing adaptation arises. If past experience is a precedent, there is very little to be optimistic about.

Published: Saturday 04 May 2013

Adaptation is critical. In the new deal, it is important to look at the value add. Without mitigation, adaptation responses will become more challenging. Therefore, universal mitigation is important. It is important to mainstream climate change considerations in national planning.

We need to tackle mitigation and adaptation and integrate low carbon development and resilience. The 2015 deal should facilitate that kind of transformation. It is important to draw on heavily from the work of subsidiary bodies and adaptation committee.

We reaffirm the recognition that adaptation will be a key part in the 2015 deal. Cancun Framework has been carefully crafted to balance the role of the Convention. Any efforts to enhance adaptation must build on this framework. The new deal must promote climate resilient development, ensure that the most vulnerable are not left behind, incentivise open sharing of information and lessons learned.

Adaptation is a very important issue for vulnerable countries, especially for small island states. Adaptation and mitigation are both important to combat climate change. We have established several mechanisms; Green Climate Fund (GCF) will have a window for adaptation.

Adaptation is certainly a challenge for us all. It will be integral to the 2015 deal. The metric is not how much time we give to adaptation debate in negotiation, but what we come up with. Adaptation needs to be mainstreamed. We must foster the engagement of private actors and provide support to those who need it. We must not start from the scratch and drawn on the experience from existing institutions.

Nauru (AOSIS)
New deal should encompass both mitigation and adaptation and strengthen the Cancun architecture. Attracting private funding in adaptation is difficult. Grant-based funding should be the way.

Adaptation must be a key building block and integral to post 2020 architecture. Loss and damage is important. Action of parties should be clearly defined.

Gambia (LDCs)
LDCs are the most vulnerable. It is difficult to achieve poverty alleviation and we need funding for adaptation. The capacity of our national institutions needs to be strengthened; long-term finance must be secured and any funding must be new and additional.

Adaptation is a key issue for the African group. The new deal will not be acceptable if adaptation support is not at the centre of the agreement. We propose a technical paper through SBSTA and IPCC to refer to adaptation needs in temperature scenarios of 1.5, 3.5 and 6°C; also, map cost curves in developing countries in 2020, 2030 and 2050 on the basis of different temperature scenarios.

Peru (ILAC)
Adaptation needs to be covered as a core issue. It is as important as mitigation. Cancun adaptation framework should be the base on which the new deal should build.

Adaptation is a key element. In the design of the 2015 deal or even in the planning of the process, we need to take adaptation seriously. In the design of the roundtables (at the ADP meeting in Bonn), there is only one slot for adaptation, but two slots for mitigation. This is not a balanced way to take adaptation and hope this is corrected in future. One of the ways to mainstream adaptation should be to take further enhanced action. We need to try to identify the most vulnerable sectors. Developing countries need technology, capacity building and support from developed country parties. LDCs, AOSIS and African countries especially need support. We need to strengthen financial support. GCF hasn’t started and the source of fund is scarce in the adaptation fund.

The Earth is close on reaching 400ppm CO2. The adaptation burden is huge. In the new deal, adaptation should get the same focus as mitigation.

South Africa
The new instrument needs to realize the full scope of the ultimate objective of Convention. We were supposed to stabilize GHG concentrations, but we were not able to do that. We are way past the point of natural adaptation. We have discussed existing structures for too long. Nothing that we do here is already not reflected in the Convention. Developing countries are already bearing a disproportionate burden. When we talk about ambition, we also talk about adaptation. It is an issue of life and death for us.

Venezuela (ALBA group)
Consistent with Article 4 of the Convention, all developing countries must be supported. We need adequate, predictable and sustained funding.

All instruments under the Convention are splattered all over the place. We need harmonization. The bottom line is that we can negotiate forever to set up structures but if support is not forthcoming, all provisions of the Convention will be rendered useless.

Subscribe to Daily Newsletter :

Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.