Some notes from Bonn.
The AWG-LCA completed the first reading of the adaptation chapter of the negotiation text between Wednesday June 3 and Thursday 4, 2009. The chair, Mr. Michael Zammit of Malta, requested Parties to use the first reading to seek clarification, set markets and placeholders, and identify gaps.
The Negotiation Text chapter on adaptation is divided six sections: A. Objectives, scope and guiding principles (A); Implementation of adaptation action (B); Means of implementation (C); Risk reduction, management and sharing (D); Institutional arrangements (E); and Monitoring and review of adaptation action and support (F).
The Philippines, speaking for the G77 and China, said that the section on adaptation was heavily focused on assessment and not enough on means of implementation. Requesting for a placeholder in the chapter, there must be an institutional approach for adaptation under the Convention with strategic programmes of action, setting up permanent committees and subsidiary body on adaption, as well as means of implementation through a multi-window mechanism under Convention. The chapter on adaptation places the burden and responsibility for adaptation on developing countries rather than facilitating access to financing to implement adaptation activities according to the obligations of developed countries under the Convention. The context for action on adaptation lies within the Convention and the commitments for the provision of financial resources. In reference to section A of the Chapter, “Facilitating, supporting”, and “all parties” will require discussion and must be consistent with the Convention and there must be equal treatment of adaptation vis-à-vis mitigation. There is a need to clarify the meaning of resilience—it is necessary to adaptation to the adverse effects on climate change, and the group will come back with clarification on the thinking. The implementation of adaptation action must not be an additional burden, thus clarification is needed on national adaptation plans, the agreed full incremental cost, and institutional arrangements, as well as the meaning of concepts such as “results-based,” “country-driven,” “avoiding fragmentation of adaptation action and support thereof”, as well as “monitoring and review of adaptation action and support.” There is more to the Convention than “facilitating coherence”. On Section B, further clarification will be necessary on the language regarding plans to be “reviewed and updated,” as well as references to the private sectors, support for “poor countries” and prioritizing support according to vulnerability risk and impacts, national circumstances, respective financial and technical capabilities, levels of poverty and climate change exposure. Other references that set conditions for support, such as programmatic approach and integration of adaptation into development and co-benefits with mitigation were marked for further discussion. On section C and E, language must be consistent with the Convention and it is necessary to move beyond the “catalytic role” into enhanced implementation according to the Convention –adaptation has to have a front role, with upscale financial support and support for stand-alone actions. The group will present new language on much of the section C. Regarding the Nairobi Work Programme, it must be enhanced; it is more than a hub of knowledge. The Group will provide new language on the sections, including section F to be consistent with commitments to monitor adaptation support and compliance with Articles 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5.
Cook Islands, speaking on behalf of AOSIS, said that the text on the section provides a useful starting point but that much work remains before adaptation under Convention truly addresses the needs of SIDs, other particularly vulnerable developing countries. The urgency and immediacy of these needs requires a focus on adaptation actions, in particular that the adequate institutional arrangements and means for implementation for country driven adaptation are accessible. It noted that many techniques for monitoring are not appropriate to adaptation. On the section A of the Chapter, the formulation of the objective and scope is not clear, and the articulation should be consistent with the BAP and some of views on the section on vulnerable countries, particularly SIDS and LDCS are not well articulated and should be part of shared vision section and be consist with the BAP throughout the text. This building block of the BAP refers to special needs of the vulnerable developing countries parties—not all Parties— and the Chapter must be consistent with the BAP and should not include other issues, such as response measures. Further on section A, The principles provided in the Convention must remain central and ideas of efficiency must not compromise action on adaptation. Section B and C must remain together as part of the block; the current focus on enabling activities and planning is problematic and the Chapter must emphasis implementation. National Adaptation Plans must not place additional burden and the activities on the section are very prescriptive and above and beyond the capacities of developing countries. The review of national adaptation plans as presented out in the text is not acceptable and it is not clear how these would be performed.
Tuvalu said the current section B and C were heavily focused on enabling activities and that it is not appropriate to be too prescriptive on the nature of adaptation. We must work for a country drive approach as key; some may choose a programmatic approach some may choose adaptation actions. It added the importance of that climate-proofing development and the need for separate section risk management and risk reduction.
Mexico said that the section on adaptation was a good reflection of the discussions had. Climate change needs to be included in the planning process at all sectors levels and there is need to support design and implementation, but the text does not acknowledge the need to include actions in the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and in sectoral plans, where it would appropriate. There needs to be emphasis on the implementation of action and to respond to special circumstances of all developing countries in consistence with the Convention.
Norway spoke of the need for a clear understating of roles and respond between national and internal level, and between UNFCCC and other structures. It stressed that adaptation must be country-led and suggested that guiding principles can be structured recognizing the adaptation is highlight contextual and that one size does not fit all and that must be address in the overall country planning— not as a single plan. On the text session D, risk reduction and management should no be treated separately but as one part of the adaptation measures.
Japan said that it is necessary to first address several questions, such as what the groups needs to decide by COP15 and what after, who does what, what obligations and what are voluntary actions, what specific elements should be discussed under the UNFCCC, and what other things can be done in other existing mechanisms and frameworks. The text must not place too much emphasis on financing issues on this section. On section A, it asked if the polluter pays principles would mean to include polluting developing countries. On Section A, it asked for clarifications on the relationship between and NAPs and NAPAS, and if the formers would replace the latter, and if the actions promoted under the sections were consistent with NAPAS.
Iceland said that the text was a good starting point and that action should be programmatic rather than project based and links with sustainable development should be reflected, including policy guidelines and different roles and actions. There needs to be consideration of gender and the full participation in the decision making process of women for more effective policy. Women have a role of plan as agents of change, The Convention should continue to serve as catalytic role, and it should be simply and effective structure
South Africa, speaking for the African Group, said that an agreement in COP15 would not be achievable without an agreement on finance, technology and capacity building. There is too much emphasis on planning in the text and it currently represents the only tool for adaptation. In the section A, it must set the context of urgency of action and the additional burden to developing countries. This section must also clearly define the objective and purpose of adaptation, and the need for a comprehensive approach with access to technology and finance and capacity building. Enabling activities should be directly supportive of activities and they should be linked to funding. On Section b, the purpose of the national plans tool needs to be clarified and additional principles need to included reflecting in particularly common but differentiated responsibilities, a country driven, a recognition of the concern of vulnerable groups and it should reflect indigenous knowledge and practices.
Australia welcomed the text as a reasonable start and said that the text would benefit from restructuring some areas and marked a number of issues that would require further discussion, such as the legal form the types of activities, the definition of vulnerable countries, and the authority the COP will have on the on the framework. Regarding institutional arrangement, it is important that any arrangements should build on existing arrangements and this should not be considered alone and that action on adaptation striving for fairness and efficiency.
Canada said that addressing the adverse effects and building resilience should be the guiding principles of the action on adaptation. The frameworks should not be overly prescriptive of how actions should be implement or how planning should happen. On section E, it felt uncertain on new institution would relate to existing bodies and expressed concern with the current approach to insurance, addressing loss and damages.
USA said that conversations on adaptation must happen in the context of Bali Action Plan paragraph 1(c) and view of the preamble, Article 3, and article 4.1 of the convention as operational guidelines for implementation. The goal is to enhance adaptation by integration adaptation into national, sub-national, and sectoral strategies. We should not limit discussions to national action plans, but also focus on implementation of planning for development. The framework for adaptation must seek action by all Parties and utilize the efforts that other institutions contribution to adaptation. A section delineating common obligations on adaptation that apply to all Parties should be included in the. The chapter on adaptation should reflect the Annex on adaptation submitted by the USA. Section D on risk management should be not given preference over sections of the Chapter. The language on finance and technology should be in that respective section and not scattered throughout the text to streamline. The chapter discussing insurance not accurate; it is not a financial transfer mechanism, it’s a risk transfer mechanism. It requires appropriate regulation, adequate access to markets, legal and regulatory environments, and in some cases infrastructure, which are not present which are resources, and the current approach to insurance is not right. In respect to climate refugees, the concept has important implications on international law and the language must be premature. With respect to climate refugees, it recognized the importance of this topic but said it was premature to contain such a language and that this will require careful consideration.
Czech Republic on behalf of the EU said that it is necessary to avoid adaptation plans as an end in itself, but that it was necessary to acknowledge the importance integrating adaptation into national development and that, under the section B on implementation of adaptation in the section on ‘enabling environments for support adaptation action’, the language on formulating and reporting national adaptation plans, assessing, identifying, costing and prioritizing should be strengthened to better identify the objectives and scope of adaptation, focusing on a framework for action and the catalytic role of the Convention. Reference to finance must be look in an integrated way. Under the section D on risk reduction, it is reluctant to the language on rehabilitation and compensation component to address progressive negative impacts that result in loss and damage.
Argentina said the chapter must clearly reflect the needs of developing countries and be based on the principles of Convention. The implementation of adaptation actions should not be legally binding, but the financial commitment to support must be.
Ecuador said the problems we face today is the result of consumption patterns that have played an essential role in the creation of wealth and the impact that will be suffered will reinforce inequity and affect the most vulnerable. The chapter on adaptation must continue to recognize vulnerable groups, such as women, children and indigenous peoples. Emphasis on ecosystem services and community-based adaptation are essential for implementation for sustainable development poverty reduction. Legally binding commitments for developed countries and the provision of new, additional, predictable financial resources, additional to ODA to implementation.
Panama, speaking for several Latin American countries, spoke on the section on means of implementation and asked that the list current of financial resources needs to be clarified rather than a long list of options noting that work on adaptation should be based on the principles of historical responsibility of develop countries and
The Russian Federation said that adaptation has to be for all. In sections B and C, it assessment of adaptation has to be comprehensive and positive consequences do not have to be discarded. On the Section E, the level of adaptation action must be at the national level and should not be beyond the limits of national legislation.
Singapore asked to put markers in the section of means of implementation, requesting further clarification on ecosystem-based adaptation activities and marked concern with issues and under section B on implementation of adaptation activities it requested clarification on adaptation to the impact of the implementation of response measures. On section C, Means of Implementation, it promised to introduce new language regarding the sources of new and additional financial support for adaptation.
Venezuela said that the chapter on adaptation must be anchored on Articles 4 of the Convention and that is important to avoid new classifications that those already agreed in the Convention. Referring to the section C, providing supporting adaptation at local and national levels and supporting adaptation particularly vulnerable developing country Parties are not exclusive. It is unacceptable that a debt on adaptation be blocked by requirements above and beyond from what is agreed in the Convention.
Switzerland said that risk management climate and efficiency in delivery are the answer to the question of integration into development, and this is reflected in the text. On implementation of adaptation actions, a lot of work has been done to build enabling environments and to assess vulnerability and complete assessment needs. Implementation itself should be programmatic and insurance as part of mechanism will play and important. On section E, it supports institutional arrangements that can add value. On Section F, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness is crucial for monitoring and evaluation.
New Zealand said that clarity is needed on the specific actions that need to be funded. Support must go to the most vulnerable and the role of the Convention should be clear with clarity between the responsibility of the developed countries and developing countries. The terminology used in the Chapter is consistent with the Convention and further clarification is needed on the meaning of the polluter pays principles.
Egypt said that regional coordination is necessary when appropriate and that the role of private sectors does not remove the responsibility of countries and that the role of sectors is only additional, not as substitute, for public support.
Algeria stressed that according to Article 4.4 of the Convention, Annex II P arties are committed to assist vulnerable countries, which is a commitment that must be reported. The implementation of adaptation actions has been slowed by decisions made in the early days of the Convention and by the cumbersome GEF requirements of global benefits. The CDM shared of process should be replaced with funds from Annex II, in accordance with the Convention.
Colombia said support for adaptation must happen in view of the historical responsibility, thus requirement a legally binding commitment to support adaptation. The role of ecosystem services is one of the main topics that need to be reflected on long-term cooperation as part of ecosystem-based adaptation. Vulnerability cannot be seen only as GNP and must also consider other asymmetries.
Bangladesh said that the focus should be given on actions and programmes, but on the negotiation text on the implementation of adaptation actions, and in this regard Bangladesh emphasis on, and this should be risk and diversification and micro-insurance and the institutional arrangements is one of the most important item and wonders if the existing and proposed arrangement ill be enough to response to the adverse climate impacts as there should be rapid deployment of resources.
India said that the respective roles of the developed and developing countries parties had to be clarified and that finance and technology by developed countries is required. On implementation, economic diversification deserves to be treated comprehensively on other areas. On Section C, clarification is needed on whether actions to be taken by own resources or the international community. The Chapter currently implies that all Parties are eligible for financial support, not making clear that this support is only for developing countries –according to the Convention. Financial resources are to be provided by developed countries only and the section currently implies that actions would be subject to external review. On section F, these commitments for non-Annex I countries are not based in the convention and it should be limited to actions enabled by support. References to a “new climate regime” are not acceptable— the Convention is already the climate regime.
China marked their concerns on the sections of implementation of adaptation actions indicating that national adaptation plans are to be reviewed— who will review what – and on Section E, regarding the catalytic role of the convention. Further clarify is needed on the language requiring a national focal point.
Bolivia said that there is a lack of balance between the BAP and the negotiating text. There are many part of the text that weakens the Convention. The text requires further work, particularly on the necessary measures on the implementation activities and for a mechanism for implementation according to needs of developing countries and that lives up to the commitments of the developed countries.
Tanzania said that the rehabilitation and compensation must be part of the Chapter, and that this compensation includes compensation for the lost of human lives, land, resources, and the good and services to the global community.
Saudi Arabia said that response measures are part of the Convention and should be considered under the adaptation section, as countries need to adapt. The Transfer of technology and insurance are important to adapt to response measures. The LCA must follow the convention verbatim, and take onboard all concerns and all interest.
For the second reading of the text, Parties will be invited to provide textual suggestions.