Adaptation: A step child in the climate regime
Adaptation to climate change yet to gain firm ground
Adaptation to the impacts of climate change was regarded as an afterthought initially by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol. But by the late 1990s many of the G77 group, particularly the 43-member Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) and the 49-member LDC group pressed for more focus on adaptation. However, the Annex-1 countries (A1Cs) initially resisted this attempt, perhaps apprehending that a focus on adaptation would be an acknowledgment of responsibility and liability, since they were mainly responsible for global warming. Adaptation has also been held back by intra-G77 disunity. OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, continued to demand compensation for the economic and social consequences of a likely reduction in oil sales. It was argued that compensation from the A1Cs for investment in diversifying their oil-dependent economies should be regarded as an adaptation strategy. This standoff has untold consequences, affecting millions of the world's poorest who are in dire need of adequate support to cope with climate change. However, the Bali Action Plan adopted at the thirteenth Conference of the Parties (COP-13) in 2007 broke this impasse. * However, since COP-7 in 2001, adaptation has incrementally moved towards centre stage. Finally, at COP-16 last year the global community saw some major progress, including agreement to work out a detailed Adaptation Framework. One reason this apparent shift in focus from A1Cs is that they were not fulfilling their mitigation commitments. So, giving some concession was viewed as a more 'winnable' fight. Despite these concessions adaptation continues to remain a step child, as is evident from the following indicators: * The track record of funds transfers to NA1Cs is dismal, particularly for adaptation. During the last decade, only about US$500 million was collected by the UN system as adaptation funding, out of which less than half has been disbursed so far. Another estimate shows that about $150 million has been disbursed under the three climate funds till mid-2010. There are estimates that the current level of climate finance is two orders of magnitude smaller than the estimated needs. Another estimate of allocation as adaptation funding stands at a mere $3 billion only -- out of the committed $30 billion. Actually, the global average funding for adaptation stands at around 25% only, but EU funding for it stands at 37%. * The low profile of adaptation is evident from the fact that only a miniscule share of proposals so far tabled by the western policy entrepreneurs for a post-Kyoto regime deals with adaptation as a policy issue. Mitigation remains the overwhelming concern in the thought-process of A1Cs. * The founding principle of the UNFCCC concerns “equity” and “common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities” was aimed at A1Cs to take the lead in mitigation, but this isn't the case for adaptation. Less attention has been directed as to who should pay for adaptation and how it should be delivered. Some of these relate to the distributive questions that are posed by the ethics of adaptation, which are “not only between burden-takers, but also between the recipients of benefits.” * The texts in the Convention and the Protocol also discriminate between mitigation and adaptation. Unlike mitigation, which has a defined framework of actions, texts in adaptation focus on `planning' rather than action. Even with the Cancun Agreements where substantial progress was achieved on adaptation, discussions on policies and measures to flesh out the Adaptation Framework still continue to focus more on facilitative type of actions, rather than on concrete adaptation projects, targeted to directly benefit the impacted communities. * Both the Copenhagen Accord and the Cancun Agreements clearly spell out the need for `balanced' allocation of $30 billion as fast start finance between adaptation and mitigation, but there is no such clear indication of such balanced allocation in the $100 billion long-term finance, except the statement that `a significant share of adaptation finance will flow through the newly established Green Climate Fund.' * Finally, as climate change is a major market failure, tackling it, particularly its impacts and hence adaptation should not be entrusted to the private sector. Was New Orleans after Katrina rebuilt with private money? Still there is no appreciable indication of assured sources of public funding for adaptation. On the other hand, indications are there that bilateral agencies and multilateral banks are trying to push for loans for adaptation projects in countries including the LDCs. Negotiators, particularly those of the LDCs, need to upgrade the legal basis of adaptation as a global responsibility.
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments