Climate change: Balancing adaptation and mitigation

Quamrul Islam Chowdhury The First UN Annual Adaptation Forum is all set to be held in Warsaw in November during the Climate Conference. Its aims are to raise the profile of adaptation under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and enhance cohesion of concrete actions onto the ground by showcasing the best practices and lessons learnt across the globe. The final decision was taken at the fourth meeting of the Adaptation Committee held in Nadi, Fiji on September 5-7, 2013 as per the guidance of the Doha Climate Conference last year. The Adaptation Committee (AC), created under Cancun Adaptation Framework adopted at Cancun Climate Conference in 2010, has completed its work for the first year and proposed additional steps to enhance coherence of adaptation matters including publication of the first Annual State of Adaptation at Warsaw Climate Conference in November. The Adaptation Committee meeting chaired by AC vice-chair Christina Chan from USA, also discussed coherence and collaboration on adaptation-related activities under the Climate Convention and activities relating to means of implementation for adaptation; communication of current support for adaptation in developing countries by regional institutions and United Nations agencies; and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) for non-LDC developing countries, including collaboration with the LDC Experts Group (LEG). The 16-member AC, the only body in the entire UN system, took a number of decisions, including that on its interaction with other bodies of the Convention over the course of the year; the need for harmonisation of work of the AC with respect to NAPs and the LEG; and its response to issues identified by the Conference of Parties (COP) and requests from the Subsidiary Bodies. The AC also outlined specific substantive issues requiring further action, including requesting clarification from the Board of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), on its intent to obtain technical inputs from the Adaptation Committee. On the means of implementation and other ways to enhance coherence and collaboration, at the third meeting of the AC, members recognised that to promote coherence individual activities of its work plan should not be stand-alone activities, but rather build on other activities, and began referring to them as being part of broader 'work streams'. The AC formed a joint task force on the means of implementation. The proposal was to "consider various issues and approaches in relation to means of implementation, such as: monitoring adaptation programmes and projects implemented, including the funding provided and received, and providing a synthesis report to the COP; inviting a dialogue between adaptation practitioners and financial institutions on funding adaptation; improving coherence with regard to monitoring and evaluating adaptation activities. Task force member Juan Hoffmaister of Bolivia presented a matrix of the work streams which comprised a work stream on technical support and guidance to the Parties; a work stream on the means of implementation and a work stream on awareness raising, outreach and information sharing. The AC members welcomed the matrix. The AC also finalised a letter in response to the Advisory Board of the Climate Technology Centre and Network (AB-CTCN) on the criteria for prioritising countries' request to the CTCN (the operational arm of the Technology Mechanism). The AB-CTCN's draft on criteria for prioritising requests from countries was made available to the members of the AC. The AC laid importance on flexibility and country ownership in setting the prioritisation criteria given the diversity of adaptation technology needs and actions and the uncertainties of future impacts. As such, countries should be allowed to identify for themselves what their needs and priorities are for adaptation, rather than be limited to a few sectors. The AC members said the CTCN can play an important role in supporting actions identified in the countries' technology needs assessments (TNAs) as well as in supporting NAPs and processes (which may draw from the TNA work). Through the NAPs, the countries will identify technology needs and priorities as they strive to address climate change in the medium and long terms. The AC also underscored the importance of balancing adaptation and mitigation requests from countries, but sought clarity on how the CTCN will seek to achieve this balance in practice. The members would like the CTCN to recognise that countries may prioritise new innovations in adaptation and they would require research, and is pleased that CTCN recognises both the 'hard' and 'soft' aspects of technology. Such innovations, the members said, could also be the result of combining traditional and indigenous knowledge with cutting-edge new technologies that result in new approaches. It encouraged the CTCN to recognise that countries may prioritise both 'proven' as well as innovative approaches. The AC meeting underlined the importance of the public sector in adaptation. The criteria for responding to country-requests should also allow for and encourage the private sector, no matter whether through small, medium or large-sized enterprises, to engage in adaptation technology. However, it stressed that the public sector should play a greater role in empowering the poorest and the most vulnerable populations and communities to make informed decisions about and have access to adaptation technologies. The meeting opined that this will enable greater flexibility for the CTCN to respond to the priorities and needs of the countries, including through the TNAs, NAPs and other avenues. The AC has re-emphasised the importance of balancing adaptation and mitigation. It also requested greater clarity on the role of consortium-organisations in the CTCN and would like to note that most of the consortium organisations were energy-focused. The meeting sought to encourage the CTCN to share lessons learned from other relevant experiences, such as with TNA focal points, on how National Designated Entities (NDEs) might coordinate with and represent a range of adaptation expertise, particularly if adaptation is identified in TNAs, NAPs and other avenues as country priorities. The AC established an ad hoc group in collaboration with relevant organisations and experts, to work on modalities and guidelines for NAPs for non-LDC developing countries to plan, prioritise, and implement NAP measures. The ad hoc group was created at the second meeting of the AC (held in March 2013) with three members and one member of the LEG, to review the existing LDC guidelines with a view to determining their adequacy and gaps. The proposal on NAPs' finance, (having identified several areas that appear to pose challenges to financing the formulation and implementation of NAPs), is for the AC to convene further work on this matter as part of the work stream on the means of implementation in 2014. This is to enable better understanding of technical issues that may pose challenges to developing countries in accessing resources for the NAPs. The AC meeting identified issues requiring further technical exploration, among them, agreed to full cost of activities to enable the preparation of the NAP process; the procedures and/or requirements for an LDC to access the LDC Fund, and for a non-LDC country to access the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) to finance NAPs. A meeting will take place at the next AC meeting with representatives of the LDCF, SCCF and other funds serving adaptation for a focused dialogue in this regard. The AC decided to recommend to the COP, the consideration of the role of a Global Support Programme (GSP) for non-LDCs, recognising their diverse needs and capacities in the area of adaptation planning and implementation. The GSP would place considerable emphasis on taking stock of prior and ongoing initiatives; carried out by national governments, multilateral or bilateral agencies, NGOs or other institutions; to strengthen technical and institutional capacities for medium and long-term adaptation planning. The GSP refers to programmes developed by organisations and agencies to facilitate technical and financial support for the NAP process. In 2012, a GSP has been created by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to support the NAPs' process, with particular attention to LDCs. Klaus Radunsky of Austria in reference to the NAPs of non-LDCs, said this was important work but it was only a starting point. He agreed in principle to start a task force on NAPs. He, however, stressed the need for a careful consideration of its scope. Hoffmaister of Bolivia, in response to Austria, expressed shock at the notion that work on the NAPs for non-LDCs was only a starting point. He did not want the work to be "called a new thing". Moving this issue to the next year will not send a clear message to COP. Amjad Abdulla of Maldives said it was a pity that members appeared to be going backwards on this issue. Fredrick Kossam of Malawi said the issue was nothing new. He said it was high time that AC had some serious thoughts about this and moved this forward. With regards to the task force, he said it was in line with what was being discussed. Luke Daunivalu of Fiji said the proposal set a good platform. He noted that the discussions had started at the first meeting of the AC. The AC had gone beyond the timeframe set particularly on NAPs for LDCs and non-LDCs. Sumaya Ahmed Zakieldeen of Sudan said that for the sake of advancing NAPs in Warsaw, the AC needed to conclude on this item. As a member, this writer pointed out NAPs were very important for developing countries and they had been waiting for this piece of work for months and said there seemed to have a great degree of convergence to be flagged in the report to the COP and the members could come back to it at the next meeting on some minor things to be modified. The AC agreed to the proposal for establishing a task force mandated to serve as the panel within the AC that continuously looks at issues related to NAPs; to liaise with the LEG in support of their work in relationship to NAPs in LDCs; to identify opportunities where activities can also be employed by non-LDCs; to follow up on the operationalisation modalities identified for the support of non-LDC NAPs under the guidance of the Chair of the AC; and to report to the AC at every meeting with issues identified and activities proposed to support the NAP process for all eligible developing countries. The writer is a member of the Adaptation Committee, chairman of FEJB and APFEJ. [email protected]