About the Authors:
Achala Chandani is currently Researcher, Climate Change Group and Team Leader, Global Climate Change Governance at International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). She is expert in international environmental law and climate change; gender, equity and fairness issues in climate change; UNFCCC financial mechanisms and negotiations.
Linda Siegele is currently working as Staff Lawyer with Foundation for International Environmental Law and Development (FIELD). Her expertise is in cross-cutting issues like biodiversity; climate change and trade; environmental regulations using market mechanisms.
We must mitigate and adapt to climate change. On this, the international community is agreed. But exactly how to do that is still up for debate. There were high hopes that last year’s UN climate talks in Copenhagen would deliver a legally binding agreement for action on climate change. But the outcome – the Copenhagen Accord – was instead a political ‘statement of intent’ that fell significantly short of expectations. Now, after a year of interim meetings and several negotiating texts, parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are gathering in Cancun, Mexico, to try again. Their success will largely depend on settling disputes – particularly between the developed and developing world – about six key issues: shared vision, adaptation, climate finance, technology transfer, reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation, and post-2012 emissions reduction targets.
A Shared Vision?
In the Bali Action Plan, adopted at the 2007 UNFCCC talks in Indonesia, countries agreed to develop a shared vision of the long-term cooperative action needed to implement the convention effectively up to and beyond 2012, when the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ends.
The vision is meant to include a long-term global goal for emission reductions that takes into account the principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ – whereby everyone shares the common goal of effectively dealing with climate change, but with differing degrees of responsibilities for causing it – as well as the different socio-economic conditions and technological and financial capacity for action that exists within each country.
This long-term goal addresses mitigation for all parties to the convention, including the United States and large emerging emitters such as China and India that do not have binding commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. Maintaining separate discussions on a long-term goal has been very important for the large emitting developing countries who are looking for voluntary commitments and are resisting the risk of being roped into binding post-2012 emissions reduction targets (See Tricky Targets).
Since Bali, there has been much debate on the shared vision, and a draft negotiating text is ready for discussion in Cancun. In addition to tackling a long-term global goal for emissions reductions, the draft addresses each of the five ‘building blocks’ in the Bali Action Plan – mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology transfer and capacity building.
This broad scope is favoured by many developing countries that are keen to see all these issues addressed in the shared vision text. But some developed country parties believe that the vision should focus mainly on the long-term emission reductions goal – that is, the numbers.
The lack of consensus means that many sections of the shared vision text remain heavily bracketed and will need to be resolved in Cancun if the text is to provide the basis for a binding agreement.
Advancing Adaptation
Another ‘hot’ issue at Cancun will be adaptation. Given that the effects of climate change are already impacting millions of lives across the world – from rising sea levels to devastating floods to encroaching deserts – interventions that help vulnerable countries adapt to climate change are critical.
Adaptation has been discussed in the UNFCCC since the convention was agreed in 1992. But what the term actually means remains unclear, which has slowed down progress in negotiations about adaptation, particularly around who needs to do what for whom.
There are four particularly contentious issues in adaptation talks that could prove to be deal-breakers in Cancun.
Defining ‘Vulnerability’: There are deep divisions between developed and developing countries – as well as among developing countries – over how ‘vulnerability’ should be defined. Some countries argue that vulnerable nations are those highlighted in the Bali Action Plan – namely, least developed countries (LDCs), small island developing states (SIDS) and African countries. But others think it should refer to all developing countries. The definition is important because it will be used to prioritize adaptation funding, which is limited. [1]
Adaptation Finance: Indeed, a lack of finance for adaptation is a big concern for many developing countries. So far, despite clear language in the UNFCCC on the need for adaptation finance, the level of funding available has paled in comparison to what is needed in the developing world. The Copenhagen Accord includes pledges of significant climate finance (See Money Matters) and promises a “balanced allocation” between adaptation and mitigation. But a recent analysis of current pledges shows that only US $ 4.5 billion, or 15.9 per cent, of all fast-start climate funds will go towards adaptation. [1]
Response Measures: The potential impact of ‘response measures’ – actions to mitigate emissions – is also holding up negotiations on adaptation. The term has been promoted by oil-rich countries as a means to ensure that their transition to a low-carbon economy will be supported alongside vulnerable countries’ adaptation. Under the Bali Action Plan [2], response measures were integrated into emissions reduction – that is, mitigation – discussions, whereas adaptation became its own ‘pillar’ to be negotiated separately. But the Copenhagen Accord has taken a step backwards and puts the two issues together. Negotiators in Cancun will have to find a way of differentiating between the actions needed to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and those required to tackle the impacts of response measures.
