Paragraph 1: In
the mitigation section as I see it by allowing nations to set their own
mitigation targets the nations most at risk from the effects of climate change
have accepted a compromise that will place them at an increased risk due to a
slower rate of mitigation action. As such in this section they must be rewarded
for their compromise with guarantees of increased support to help them adapt to
that risk.
Therefore I have
immediately excluded Options 3, 4, 5 and 8 because they are too weak to provide
that guarantee. Option 2 acknowledges the need for nations to co-operate in
order to help those most at risk adapt but the wording is still too weak to
provide the required level of assurance. By including the principle of Common
But Different Responsibilities (CBDR) Option 7 is on a technical level sufficient
but I would like to see the text go further.
Option 6 shows
the correct spirit by establishing a common global goal for adaptation. However
I don't see how this would work. For example if the goal is established in
purely monetary terms feasibly the head of a nation's adaptation department
could buy himself a massive gold desk fulfilling the spending requirement but
not having any actual impact on that nation's ability to adapt. Establishing the
goal in terms of the scope of people affected is equally difficult because is
protecting 100 people from a 100 year flood more or less effective then
protecting 50 people from a 50 year flood. Also adaptation is dependent on
statistical predictions which are of limited real world value. For example you
could have two 100 year floods in the space of a year and then no 100 year
flood for the next 300 years.
Therefore here I
recommend Option 1 but only if it is trimmed to read;
"All
Parties, in accordance with the principles and provisions of the Convention,
its Article 4 and their common but differentiated responsibilities and previous
decisions of the Conference of the Parties (COP), to commit to cooperate to
adapt to the adverse effects of climate change, ensure resilience and protect
citizens and ecosystems in the context of the long-term temperature limit and
to achieve sustainable development while recognising the local, national and
transboundary dimensions of adaptation agree on a long-term vision on
adaptation, based on; "
After
all poverty reduction and food security are both core principles of sustainable
development so you don't need to use all three terms.
I
would also need to see (f) removed as is binary approach that is not in the
spirit of this new agreement and (g) removed as it is redundant due to the
acknowledgement of sustainable development. I also need to see the part of (h)
that reads "determined by developing countries and supported by developed
country Parties" removed as it is binary and replaced with "in the
context of best practice" to read;
"Initiatives,
actions and programmes that are nationally determined in the context of best
practice."
Paragraph
2: As I Section D I envisage nations submitting their NAP's as part of their
INDC's which are then subjected to a peer review process. One of the main
purposes of this review process is to assist with capacity building by
promoting discussion about best practice. I see this paragraph as assisting
with that capacity building by outlining the minimum requirements of what can
be negotiated further as part of the technical annex.
As
such I've immediately excluded Options 1, 3 and 7 because they lack the
required level of detail. I've also excluded Option 4 because it is binary in
it's approach and as I've explained that approach is not going to be adopted
within this new agreement.
Option
2 is I think broadly sufficient but I would like to expand and strengthen it by
including elements from Options 5&6 so it reads;
"All
Parties shall in accordance with Article 4, paragraph 1, of the Convention:
(a). Undertake assessments of
climate change impacts and vulnerability;
(b).Strengthen governance and
enabling environments for adaptation;
(c). Monitor, report,
evaluate and learn from adaptation plans, policies and programmes;
(d). Prepare and implement their
adaptation obligations by taking into account climate
change considerations in their national development planning and national adaptation plans (NAPs);
(e). Such climate change
considerations shall be country-driven, gender-sensitive, participatory and fully transparent, take into
account vulnerable groups and ecosystems,
be based on science and traditional and indigenous knowledge, and promote the engagement of subnational and
local authorities and other stakeholders;
(f). Cooperate in
sharing best practices in the implementation of adaptation as envisaged in paragraph 50 (Option 13)
above;
(g). Prepare, maintain, communicate
and implement an adaptation component in their nationally determined
contributions, which may include, inter alia, their undertakings in adaptation planning, taking into account
the relevant guidance developed
under the Convention and following the processes and timelines for the development of national adaptation plans.
"
Paragraph
3: To my mind there is little choose between the Options so I would support
Option 1 because it is simply more neatly written.
Paragraph
4: The way that I have adapted Paragraph 2 to provide for capacity building
renders this entire paragraph an irrelevant duplication. So while it details
negotiation positions that I have read and been mindful of it has no place in
the final text of the agreement.
Paragraph
5: The purpose of NAP's is to help build capacity. In order to do that they need
to be mandatory. As such here I have excluded Option 2 as not being in the
spirit of the agreement. By making NAP's mandatory Option 3 is stronger but I
still don't think it goes far enough in terms of capacity building. Therefore here I
support Option 1 when it reads;
"Commitments
/ contributions / actions to be consistent with / informed by the NAP process
subject to modalities and procedures to be developed and adopted by the
governing body:
(a). NAPs provide the basis for all
countries to assess vulnerabilities and identify and implement adaptation measures;
(b). NAPs are a key strategic
framework for adaptation planning, the determination
of adaptation priorities, adaptation support and needs, as well as the guiding of integration of adaptation
and implementation thereof;
(c). NAPs to go beyond planning and
mainstreaming into concrete actions on the ground
by defining modalities for support and implementation;
(d). Ensure that the
NAP process is undertaken in a participatory and inclusive manner, building on existing
community-driven and traditional adaptation efforts
in all parties particular in SIDS and the LDCs.
(e). The provision of support for
NAPs to build on progress made by the Least Developed
Countries Fund (LDCF), the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the Adaptation
Fund, the Least Developed Countries
Expert Group, the Adaptation Committee and multilateral and bilateral organisations and agencies."
In
(d) I've excluded "in Africa" because I think it should be LDC's in
any continent rather then every country in one particular continent. I've also
excluded (f) entirely because with NAP's being included as part of INDC's it's
superfluous.
At around 20:55 on 2/9/15 (UK date) I am fully aware that covers little more then 1/6th of the section. I have read it all but have not yet had the time to put my thoughts into words. So expect additions because I thought this would be better then nothing.
Edited at around 15:50 on 3/9/15 (UK date) to add;
Edited at around 15:50 on 3/9/15 (UK date) to add;
Paragraph
6: Here Options 2, 5 and 6 are binary and therefore I have excluded them.
Option 3 somehow manages to be both binary in its approach while still failing
to provide assurances of increased flows of support. Option 7 is too specifically
focused on capacity building issues that are already addressed by other
mechanisms within the agreement such as the peer review process without
addressing other methods of support.
Therefore
here I support Option 1 but only if it is strengthened to include elements of
Options 2, 4, 8 and 9 by reading;
"All
Parties to undertake the steps necessary to ensure that the level of support
meets the needs for adaptation in the context of the long-term temperature
limit by:
(a). Enhancing support in terms of
finance, technology, and capacity-building and to
enable Parties most at risk to enhance their adaptation actions so as to ensure their resilience and reduce
vulnerability;
(b). Formulating adaptation support
plans, including overall objectives, milestones,
and sources of finance for supporting adaptation actions in less capable nations in terms of finance,
technology, and capacity-building, to address the
urgent needs of those Parties and ensure long-term support;
(c). Ensuring the provision of new
and additional, adequate and predictable financial
resources, technology development and transfer, and capacity-building to meet the costs of adaptation to the
adverse impacts of climate change in less capable
countries, including the agreed full incremental costs of implementing adaptation measures taken in accordance
with commitments under Article 4, paragraph
1, of the Convention;
(d). The most capable nations
providing support to less capable nations to assess their adaptation needs in terms of finance, technology and
capacity-building, and the support
activities shall be monitored and evaluated periodically;
(e). Providing predictable,
grant-based, long-term, additional and measurable finance, safe, appropriate and environmentally sound
technology, and capacity-building
support.
Paragraph
7: Here I consider Option 1 to be sufficient because I see the INDC and peer
review process as providing an mechanism for parties to communicate their NAP's
to the COP. However I will need the final sentence to be struck through because
I think that failing to draw up a coherent and workable adaptation plan should
be a serious impediment to receiving funds for adaptation.
Paragraph
8: I see this as fine provided it reads; "The main vehicle." I'm also
happy to see gender disaggregated data because I think you'll find that's how
most data is collected anyway.
Paragraph
9: I see this as fine as is because it further strengthens the role of the
capacity building peer review process within the agreement.
Paragraph
10: Here I support Option 2 provided it
reads;
"The
governing body shall develop a structured dialogue to enhance communication of
information on adaptation, in accordance with common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities in order to enhance reporting on
support."
That
is because I see it as further strengthening the role of the peer review
process preventing it being excluded during future negotiations.
Paragraph
11: This is already covered by my wording of Paragraph 10 and therefore
redundant.
Paragraph
12: I consider this fine provided it reads;
"All
existing UN institutions and international and national financial institutions
are encouraged to provide information to Parties through the UNFCCC secretariat
on how their development assistance programmes and finance incorporate climate
proofing and climate resilience measures."
That
allows the secretariat some freedom on how to best communicate that information
by not forcing it to use a clearing house/registry that has not yet been
designed.
Paragraph
13: I consider this fine as is because it simply requires that relevant bodies
actually read information provided to them.
Paragraph
14: Here Options 3,4 and 5 all prevent the agreement placing additional
burdens on developing nations. One of the core purposes of the agreement is to
help build capacity in developing nations by placing small, additional burdens
upon them. Therefore I have immediately excluded these options.
Options
2 and 6 are far too weak making no reference to cooperation between nations or
providing guidance on how to build capacity. Therefore I have also excluded
these options.
Although
I think it is essential that the agreement does place additional burdens on
nations I also understand that there is no point in doing that unless nations
are provided with support to help them meet those burdens. Therefore I support
Option 1 provided it reads;
"Monitoring
and evaluation of, reporting on, and learning from plans, policies and
programmes shall be strengthened and /or institutionalized by:
(a). Strengthening and improving
climate-related research and systematic observation
and providing enhanced support;
(b). Considering indicators for
governance and planning;
(c). Monitoring gaps in adaptation
and needs under different scenarios;
(d). Monitoring and evaluation to
focus on the provision and adequacy of support;
(e). Assessing the provision of
adaptation support available from more capable Parties
in relation to the needs of less capable Parties, taking into account cooperative actions and recognition of past
investments by less capable Parties;
(f). Placing no additional burden on
less capable Parties beyond that which can be met
through increased support from more capable Parties."
As
I've said numerous times before I dislike the terminology
"Developed/Developing" because it suggests that certain nation's
economic development has finished. This simply does not reflect the reality of
economic development.
Paragraph
15: All three options here mean generally the same thing. However I support
Option 3 because it further underlines the need for cooperation between
nations. If it was re-written to read;
"All
Parties shall cooperate to build resilience and adapt to the adverse effects of
climate change through the sharing of information on best practices, technical
guidance and lessons learned."
It
would remove the need for a separate Paragraph 16.
Paragraph
16: See above.
Paragraph
17: I see this as fine provided it reads; "The governing body/COP shall
request the concerned bodies ... etc" because this allows the governing
body to act without the COP to engage whatever bodies are required to best
fulfil the task. The COP also has the option to over-rule the governing body or engage whatever bodies it sees fit.
Paragraph
18: I consider this fine as is.
Paragraph
19: I consider this fine as is.
Paragraph
20: I consider this fine as is.
Paragraph
21; I consider this fine as is.
Paragraph
22: I consider this fine provided it reads; "All Parties" and (d).
reads simply "adaptation centres" to allow both regional and national
centres to be established as need requires or resources allow.
Paragraph
23: This is fine provided the opening sentence is struck through so that
neither the Adaptation Committee nor the peer review process is given primacy
allowing their work to be treated with equal importance.
Paragraph
24: This is fine provided that (b) allows for the funding of joint
mitigation/adaptation plans. As I've mentioned before the 50:50 approach is too
restrictive possibly causing viable plans to go unfunded because they would upset the
50:50 balance.
Paragraph
25: I consider this fine as is because it provides ample opportunity for
capacity building.
Paragraph
26: I consider this fine but would replace the brackets in the opening sentence
with "establishing new/re-organising existing" because this provides
the governing body the freedom to do what is required as the need arises.
Paragraph
27: Although I can see the Adaptation Committee becoming that subsidiary body I
think there does need to be new institutional arrangements so Option 3 is not
sufficient for the purpose. I think Option 2 doesn't provide enough guidance on
the role of the new institution. Therefore here I support Option 1 provided it
reads;
"Alongside
the Secretariat the Adaptation Committee will, in order to provide the COP and
subsidiary bodies with timely information and advice to assist in the assessment
of the effective implementation of and support
for adaptation;
(a). Establish an adaptation
registry that:
(i). Records and showcases and/or
recognizes national adaptation actions, contributions,
and programmes;
(ii). Enhances cooperation on finance,
technology and capacity-building support;
(iii). Pools information on the work
of institutional arrangements under the Convention
and makes that information accessible to Parties;
(iv). Monitors and identifies progress
and gaps in adaptation from a global perspective;
(b). Establish an international
clearing house and registry that acts as the repository
for NAPs, adaptation methods, a roster of
adaptation experts, biennial adaptation
support reports, and for information on technology and capacity-building for adaptation."
I
see (d) and (e) as they appear in the original text being covered by the
opening sentence and (b) in my revision of the text. My intention being that
the peer review process will fulfil the obligations in this paragraph as a
by-product of its operation.
There are of course remaining the paragraphs on Loss & Damage and the debate on whether that topic requires a separate section. Purely due to the space limit on this blog I will be addressing them separately. Likely tomorrow.
16:15 on 3/9/15 (UK date).
