An updated from UNFCCC meetings in Bonn, also published by the Third World Network
The contact group on adaptation, under the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA) focused on matching adaptation support with finance and technology, as well as capacity building at its meeting on the 3 April. The meeting was chaired by Thomas Kolly of Switzerland and William Kojo Agyemang-Bonsu of Ghana.
Maldives, for G77 & China, said that the Adaptation Framework presented by the Group on 2nd April is consistent with the financial mechanism proposal presented by the Group. Funding for adaptation must be additional to ODA, new, predictable, and grant-based. The scale and magnitude of predicted needs for adaptation needs to be matched by finance. The governance of the financing structure has to be under the authority of the COP.
On 2nd April, the G77 and China presented elements for a Framework on Adaptation that treats adaptation and mitigation on an equal footing and recognizes adaptation as an absolute necessity for all developing countries.
The G77 and China said that the Adaptation Framework would require implementation arrangements to address enabling activities, such as knowledge sharing; functional implementation, and projects on the ground by national, local, and regional stakeholders; and coordination mechanisms. This framework should also include a mechanism to address loss and damage including insurance and requires compliance.
South Africa, speaking for the African Group, said that finance for adaptation must be massively scaled up and predictable with support for technology and capacity building, which must be additional to ODA, recognizing payment for agreed full incremental costs.
The amount needed for adaptation is in the range of US$28—67 billion per year by 2030, on the assumption that developed countries take ambitious mitigation targets. Otherwise, this amount will be higher. It stressed that the G77 and China financial mechanism proposal recognises the importance of a country-driven approach and direct access to funds.
The Cook Islands, speaking on behalf of AOSIS, said that the less there is mitigation, the more resources are required for adaptation, stressing the need to match needs with funds. The scope of the framework needs to take into account new and additional finance consistent with polluter-pays principles, and should be directed to most vulnerable countries, particularly SIDS ands LDCs. Enabling activities can include project-based activities, long-term approaches, sector-based approaches and a mechanism for loss and damage, with priority for the most vulnerable. A matching mechanism, more than a clearinghouse, must record national adaptation plans as well as new and additional funds.
Brazil said that adaptation finance must be in consistent with the G77 and China’s financial mechanism proposal. An adaptation window under the proposed financial mechanism must be created, based on contributions from developed countries with financing that is predictable, stable, new additional, country-driven for both urgent and long-term adaptation. On technology for adaptation, there must be support for research and development, diffusion, and transfer of adaptation technologies and must cover full incremental cost for adaptation technologies.
Philippines emphasised the commitment of Parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs to meet both the urgent and long term climate trends.
Uganda reminded the Parties that adaptation is a commitment, and that any other initiatives outside of the process are complementary, and that funds made available must be through a common ‘basket’ that can be monitored.
Samoa said that adaptation should be available to all developing countries, but priority access should be given to vulnerable countries, not at the expense of other countries, but as a reflection of the reality and immediacy. Climate change is additional burden beyond the control or causing of vulnerable countries, and full cost of adaptation approach is needed.
Bolivia said that climate change is causing enormous damage to developing countries’ economies and society, postponing the right to development. Developed countries, based on the irresponsible use of the carbon space, have an adaptation debt to developing countries. Adaptation has been treated under the Convention very broadly and is imbalanced, compared to mitigation. The adaptation debt must be paid through the financial mechanism proposed by the G77 and China, for the full cost of adaptation, including for the loss of development opportunities.
China underlined the need to establish a mechanism for adaptation finance that is adequate, predictable, and for long-term to support adaptation in developing countries. It said that there is a need for a regional body to guide the implementation of adaptation activities. It stressed the importance of technology transfer.
Saudi Arabia stressed the need for development and transfer of technology, and capacity building for technologies that address the adverse impacts of mitigation responses, and finance for the removal of barriers for the large-scale transfer of technologies to improve the resilience of economies and enhancement of human and institutional capacity.
The EU recognized the need to scale up support for adaptation and emphasized mutual accountability, robust governance, and a country-led approach, noting the role of different channels for delivery. Countries should be supported for climate resilient development, and climate specific adaptation programmes, noting that it is a long-term process as part of national plans, policies, and institutions. It said that that countries should be supported through this path. There is need for coherence with institutions elsewhere and the UNFCCC plays a role in improving coherence.
Japan spoke of establishing an adaptation information-sharing mechanism under the UNFCCC to highlight actual adaptation needs that necessitate resources to link them with the most appropriate resource-providers, including regional organization or donors, emphasizing the Pilot Programme for Climate Resilience under the World Bank.
New Zealand stressed the need for mutual accountability and robust governance principles as part of any support for developing countries, particularly vulnerable countries. A range of mechanisms and channels to deliver climate change support should allow the use of bilateral, regional, and international channels and accounted for as contribution to adaptation finance.
Canada said that it is useful to develop guiding principles, such as giving priority to the most vulnerable, using a country driven approach, and promoting an enabling environment that aims to achieve a common goal, as well as concepts and principles that will structure and focus adaptation to enable the most effective use of resources. There is great value in building on the expertise and resources that currently exist, and the Convention has a strong role for catalyzing adaptation efforts with new initiatives such as the Nairobi Work Programme.
Norway said that pre-definitions of appropriate adaptation actions should be avoided. Actions should be result-based, effective, and efficient. Projects will be part of adaptation actions, but it is necessary to move away from project-based mechanisms. Adaptation is learning-by-doing process, and this structure must be flexible. A one-size-fits-all support structure is not sustainable. No single institution can deal with adaptation in all areas. Additional adaptation entities must be created only when functions cannot be met by existing ones.