Twenty years of negotiations on adaptation at UNFCCC COPs

8/12/2019 Twenty years of negotiations on adaptation at UNFCCC COPs

1/11

20 years of negotiat ionson adaptation at UN F CCC COP sWhen the U NFC C C was adop ted in 1 9 9 2 , adap tation was lar gely s een as an af ter thought to mitigation.In r ecent year s , however , adap tation has become a key p iece of the r es p ons e to cl imate change.

In the following table we have an overview of negotiationsper COPs and information about global and adaptationissues discussed.

1/4

EMAPS SPRINT

6-10 january 2014

Project by

Benjamin Ooghe-TabanouKari De PryckMartina Elisa CecchiNicolas Baya-Laffite

Paolo CiuccarelliRichard RogersTommaso Venturini

The Convention was set withthe ultim a te objectiv e to

prev ent da ng erous a nthro-pog enic interferences withthe climate system. It was

ba s ed on principles ofsustainble development,

preca ution, polluter- pa y s ,com m on but differentia ted

res pons a bilit ies (equity ) a ndeconomic efficiency. It was

ba s ed on principles ofsustainble development,

preca ution, polluter- pa y s ,com m on but differentia ted

res pons a bilit ies (equity ) a ndeconomic efficiency.

Sta te res pons ibility fora dv ers e effects of clim a te

change was raised by AOSISa nd v ulnera ble countries , but

politica l com prom is esfreezed dis a g reem ent on

res pons a bility . Ada pta tionrelated issues are

mentionned in many keyconv ention com m itm ents

(e.g. article 4.4. on developedcountries a s s is ting m os tv ulnera ble countries in

m eeting cos ts (a nd not T HEcos ts ) of a da pta tion ; a rticle4 . 8 for ins ura nce for clim a te

change loss and damageinduced im pa cts ). Ada pta tion

will be long downpla y edduring COPs a nd funding

struggles moving outside theUNFCCC.

Key decis ions on s ta g eda pproa ch to funding , which

will la s t until 2 0 0 2 . Inpra ctice, reduced fundinga lloca ted for a da pta tion.

Repres enta tives of AOSISa nd Africa n

countries renewed concerna bout their pa rticula r

v ulnera bility a nd the la ck oftechnical and financial

res ources for prev ention a nda da pta tion, a nd ca lled on theG E F to pla y a n ena bling role.Focus wa s m a inly on obs erv -

ing the im pa cts of clim a techange and assessing risks

a nd v ulnera bilit ies.

Article 1 2 of the Ky otoProtocol s et up a n a da pta -

tion fund ba s ed on CE R fromCDM. Small vulnerable

countries obta ined fundingfor a da pta tion on the ba s is ofa llowing dev eloped countries

to buy offs ets from big g erdev eloping countries .

Only few references toa da pta tion on the need tocons ider the is s ue a nd its

funding throug h CDM.

AOSIS keeps em pha s ing theirv ulnera bility to g loba l

wa rm ing a nd unders coredthe need to dev elop

long - term a pproa ches toa da pta tion in the Conv en-

tions context.

Dis cus s ion a re g rowing onthe need to es ta blis h a n

a da pta tion fund, butdis a g reem ents on the ty pe of

fund, its funding m oda litiesa nd com petences prev a iled.

Further dis cus s ions on theestablishment of an adapta-

tion fund.

T he Ma rra kech Conferencem ov ed a da pta tion policy to a

pha s e of pla nning a nd pilotimplementation. NAPA's ares et up. Ada pta tion fund a ndthe Special Climate Change

(SCC) Fund and the LeastDev eloped Countries (L DC)Fund a re crea ted to s upporttechnology transfer, adapta-

tion projects a nd otheractivities, taking into

a ccount na tiona l com m unica -tions or NAPAs , a nd other

relev a nt inform a tion prov id-ed by the applicant Party.

Dev eloping countries ca lledfor g rea ter focus on a da pta -

tion, but dis a g reem entsa ros e on the s ta tus of

a da pta tion with reg a rds tom itig a tion. Som e pa rties

have a tendency to mergeboth is s ues , while others

cla im ed tha t m itig a tion a ndadaptation are separate

issues. Attempts to achieve aba la nce between a da pta tion

a nd m itig a tion did nots ucceed. COP- 8 is with

COP- 1 0 pa rt of the s o- ca lled"adaptation COPs".

China/G77 and AOSIS,concerned with the m ix ed

res ults of m itig a tionm ea s ures , a re pus hing for

m ore a ttention to a da pta tionneeds. The COP stressed theneed for dev eloped countriesto prov ide deta iled inform a -

tion on their a s s is ta nce tom os t v ulnera ble dev elopingcountry Pa rties in m eeting

cos ts of a da pta tion.

T he Buenos Airesprog ra m m e of Work on

Ada pta tion a nd Res pons eMeasures is established anda im ed a t enha ncing ca pa city

a t a ll lev els to identify a ndunders ta nd im pa cts , v ulnera -

bility a nd a da pta tionres pons es , a nd im plem entingpra ctica l, effectiv e a nd hig hpriority a da pta tion a ctions

According to E NB: a newchapter. COP-8 is with

COP- 1 0 pa rt of the s o- ca lled"adaptation COPs".

Adv ers e effects of clim a techa ng e on dev eloping a ndlea s t dev eloped countries ,and several financial and

budg et- rela ted is s ues ,including g uidelines to the

G loba l E nv ironm ent Fa cility(GEF) were adressed. On theaftermath of several extremweather events (Katrina, EUheatwaves, Autralia's fires,droughts and floodings inMiddle- incom e countries

(MICs )) puted a n end to ana rra tiv e of inv ulnera bility in

dev eloped countries , whichs ta rted cons idering their

own adaptation needs. It isagreed that the adaptation is

of hig h priority for a llcountries . T he controv ers yon a da pta tion v s m itig a tion

is "clos ed". T he deba te ismoving toward adaptation

funding s .

Agreement on procedures ofthe Ada pta tion Fund a nd

Na irobi Work Prog ra m m eon Im pa cts , Vulnera bility a nd

Ada pta tion to Clim a teChange to assist all Parties

to im prov e their unders ta nd-ing and assessment of

im pa cts , v ulnera bility a nda da pta tion to clim a te

cha ng e, a ndm a ke inform ed decis ions onpra ctica l a da pta tion a ctions

and measures (UNFCCC).

T he Ba li Conference m a rkeda turning point in a da pta tion

policy towa rds s ca ling upim plem enta tion a nd m a in-

s trea m ing . One of thesignificant outcomes bring -

ing tog ether both a da pta tionand finance was the decisionto opera tiona lize the Ada p-ta tion Fund, which wa s s etup to finance adaptation indev eloping countries . T he

Fund ha d prov en to bepa rticula rly delica te to

negotiate because, unlikeother funds under theUNFCCC, it is funded

through a levy on CDMprojects underta ken in

dev eloping countries a nd istherefore not dependent on

donors

Streng hening prev iousagreements and mechanismson a da pta ta tion. Ada pta tion

Fund wa s la unched under theKyoto Protocol, to be filled

by a 2% levy on projectsunder the CDM. It wa s

a g reed tha t the Ada pta tionFund Boa rd s hould ha v e leg a l

ca pa city to g ra nt directa cces s to dev eloping coun-

tries .

T he COP m entionned theG reen Clim a te Fund, es ta b-

lis hed one y ea r la ter inCa ncun. Dev eloped coun-tries a g reed to s upport a

g oa l of m obilizing US$ 1 0 0billion a y ea r by 2 0 2 0 to

a ddres s the needs of dev el-oping countries to s how they

a re s till eng a g ed in theneg itia tion proces s .

The Green Climate Fund wasform a lly es ta blis hed but not

a g reed upon. A deba teemerged about the transfer

of funding from dev elopm entto a da pta tion. T he los s a nd

da m a g e a pproa ch g a inedv is ibility with the s ta blis h-

ment of a specific workprog ra m . Dev eloped a nd

dev eloping countries m a in-ta ined div erg ent v iews on

ins titutiona l m echa nis m s a ndfunding reg a ring los s a nd

damage.

Agreement on Green ClimateFund Fra m ework prov ide

financing for action indev eloping countries v ia

them a tic funding windows ,including for a da pta tion. T he

Ca ncun Ada pta tion Fra m e-work a im s a t enha ncinga ctions on a da pta tion

including throug h interna -tiona l coopera tion, inclidingthe crea tion of a n Ada pta -

tion Com m ittee.

Loss and damage conceptform a lized. L ittle prog res s

on G reen Clim a te Fund.Controv ers ies rev olv ed onfunding for a da pta tion a nd

loss and damage.

Developing and emergingcountries urg ed for s treng h-

ened s upport a nd publicfinance for adaptation. NGOs

a ba ndoned the Conferencem a king ev ident their la ck of

trus t in the neg otia tionproces s . It wa s decided

further the Wa rs a w Interna -tiona l Mecha nis m for L os s

and Damage.

T he "Berlin Ma nda te" a g reedon s ta blis hing a proces s to

neg otia te s treng thenedcom m itm ents for dev elopedcountries in order to m eetthe Conv ention's objectiv e.

Quantified EmissionsL im ita tion a nd ReductionObjectiv es (QE L ROs ) fordifferent Pa rties a nd a n

a ccelera tion of the BerlinMandate talks were

dis cus s ed. Need to fa v orflexibility and legally binding

mid-term targets washig hlig hted. focus ing on

strengthening the financialm echa nis m , the dev elopm enta nd tra ns fer of technolog iesa nd m a inta ining the m om en-tum in rela tion to the Ky oto

Protocol wa s a dopted.G enev a Minis teria l Decla ra -tion noted but not a da pted.

Adoption of Ky oto Protocolsetting Annex I and Annex Bcountries binding em is s ion

reduction ta rg ets for the s ixmajor greenhouse gases for

2 0 0 8 - 2 0 09 . Outilining ofKyoto mechanisms (emis-

s ions tra ding , CDM, JI) .Dev eloping rules for em is -s ions tra ding a nd m ethod-olog ica l work in rela tion to

fores t s inks rem a in is s ues forfuture interna tiona l cons id-

eration.

Failure to resolve unfinishedKy oto is s ues , a doption of a2 - y ea r. Adoption of Buenos

Aires Pla n of Action. openeda process for finalizing the

rules a nd opera tiona l deta ilsof the Protocol. Focus is onstrengthening the financial

mechanism, the developmenta nd tra ns fer of technolog ies .

Res olution of technica lis s ues with no m a jor a g ree-m ents . Dis cus s ions focus on

the a doption of the g uide-lines for the prepa ra tion of

na tiona l com m unica tions byAnnex I countries , ca pa city

building , tra ns fer of technol-ogy and flexible mechanisms.

Deba tes on US propos a l onincluding ca rbon s inks

(fores ts a nd a g riculture) a ndon s upport for dev elopingcountries to m eet reduc-

tions . Rejection of com pro-m is e pos itions . Fa ilure a ndcolla ps e of neg otia tions on

Bonn agreements.

Bus h a dm inis tra tion'srejection of KP lea ding US

out of KP neg otia tions .Cons ens us rea ched on Bonn

a g reem ents a nd decis ionsincluding ca pa city - building

for dev eloping countries a ndcountries with econom ies in

tra ns ition. Decis ions ons ev era l is s ues , nota bly the

m echa nis m s la nd- us e cha ng ea nd fores try (L UL UCF) a nd

com plia nce, rem a inedouts ta nding .

Com pletion of Buenos AiresPla n of a ction. Concern

a bout m eeting the conditionsto bring the KP into force

a fter US withdra wa l. Ag ree-ments reached on a package

deal (the MarrakechAccords ) including opera -

tiona l rues a ccountingprocedures a nd com plia nce

reg im e, cons idera tion ofL UL UCF Principles inreporting a nd lim ited

ba nking of units g enera tedby s inks under the Clea n

Development Mechanism(CDM) (the ex tent to whichca rbon diox ide a bs orbed byca rbon s inks ca n be countedtowards the Kyoto targets).

Russia's hesitation threaten-ing the Protocol's entry into

force a fter US a nd Aus tra -lia 's withdra wa l. Dis cus s ionon a dequa cy of dev eloping

countries com m itm ents.Delhi work prog ra m on

Article 6 of the Conv ention.Need to build on the

outcom es of the WorldSum m it hig hlig hted.

Decis ions on the ins titutionsa nd procedures of the Ky oto

Protocol a nd on the im ple-m enta tion of the UNFCCC

adopted. Agreement toreview national reports

s ubm itted by non- Annex Icountries . G uidelines for

reporting em is s ions a doptedon the ba s is of IPPC's g ood

pra ctice g uida nce a s arelia ble founda tion for

reporting on cha ng es inca rbon concentra tions

res ulting from la nd- us echa ng es a nd fores try due to

2005. Marrakech packcom pleted by a g reem ent onm oda lities of CDM projects

on ca bon- a bs orbing m a na g e-ment. The COP is seen as the

"forest COP".

Dis cus s ion on the fra m ing ofa new dia log ue on the future

of clim a te cha ng e policy .E m pha s is is put on both

m itig a tion a nd a da pta tion.Decis ions a dopted on

L UL UCF, funding m echa -nis m s , a da pta tion res pons e

measures, and UNFCCCArticle 4 on educa tion,

tra ining a nd public a wa re-ness, examining the issues of

a da pta tion a nd m itig a tion,the needs of lea s t dev elopedcountries (LDCs). Post-2012

dis cus s ions s ta rted.

Firs t MOP with the Proto-col's entry into force.

Montrea l Action Pla n s et theroad for Post-2012 agree-

ment.

COP focus ed on Africa , m os tv ulnera ble countries ,

a da pta tion a nd ca pa citybuilding . 5 y ea r Na irobi

Work Prog ra m a dopted. T heNa irobi Fra m ework will

prov ide s upport for dev elop-ing countries in im plem ent-ing CDM projects . Adoptionof rules of procedure of the

Protocol's com plia ncecommittee

T he Ba li Roa d Ma p wa sa dopted, opeining a two- y ea rproces s towa rds a s treng th-ened interna tiona l clim a te

cha ng e a g reem ent, includingthe four- pilla rs Ba li Action

plan for post-2012 andem is s ion reduction from

defores ta tion. AW- L CA todis cus s the Conv entions '

implementation post-2012a nd AW- KP for furthering

commitments were created.Discussions put into ques-

tion the com m on but differ-entia ted principle on a

purely his torica l ba s is , a sreg a rds a ctua l res pons ibility

for em is s ions , pa rticula rlyfrom BRIC's

Neg otia ting s chedule for2009 post-2012 agreement

was intensified. Progress wasm a de on a num ber of is s uesof pa rticula r im porta nce to

dev eloping countries , na m elyadaptation, finance, technol-

ogy and REDD.

Clim a te cha ng e policy is putto the hig hes t politica l lev el.

Around 1 1 5 world lea dersa ttended the hig h- lev el

segment. Post-2012 ambi-tious clim a te a g reem ent

objectiv e wa s howev er nota chiev ed. Ins tea d it

produced the Copenha g enAccord, a g reing on the

long - term g oa l of lim iting themaximum global average

tem pera ture increa s e to nomore than 2 degrees Celsiusa bout pre- indus tria l lev els ,subject to a review in 2015.Relucta nce to a dopt binding

commitments becameev ident, s etting a new bottom up a pproa ch

(oppos ite to the prev ious"top- down" a pproa ch). A

num ber of dev elopingcountries a g reed to com m u-nica te their efforts to lim itg reenhous e g a s em is s ions

every two years.

Ca ncun Ag reem ents werea dopted. Pa rties a g reed on

1990-levels as base line andon IPCC's projections a s

reference, s etting the 2 Cg oa l to lim iting tem pera ture

ris e a bov e pre- indus tria llevels. A technology mecha-nis m to boos t the dev elop-

m ent a nd s prea d of newclim a te- friendly technolo-

g ies m a king fully opera tiona lby 2012

With the Ky oto Protocol'sfirst engagement period

com m ing to a n end, Pa rties a g reed a s econd com m it-ment period (2013-2020)

a nd rea ched a n a g reem enton a dopting a new bindinga g reem ent com pris ing a llcountries by 2015 to take

effect in 2020. Work begununder the Ad Hoc working

G roup on the Durba nPla tform for E nha nced

Action (ADP). A fra m eworkfor the reporting of em is s ion

reductions for both dev el-oped a nd dev eloping coun-

tries was also agreed.

A tim eta ble to a dopt a newuniversal climate agreementby 2015 was set out. Workunder the Ba li Action Pla nwas completed. New work

towards a 2015 agreementwa s concentra ted under the

ADP s ing le neg otia tingstream. The Doha ClimateGateway was adopted. It

included a m ended2013-2020 commitments,

lim ited to 1 6 % s cope ofg loba l CO2 em is s ions .

Decis ions a dopted includedfurther a dv a ncing the

Durba n Pla tform , the G reenClimate Fund and Long-TermFinance, the Warsaw Frame-

work for RE DD+ , a m ongother.

199 5 19 96 199 7 1 998 199 9 200 0 200 1 2002 20 03 20 04 20 05 2006 200 7 20 08 2009 201 0 20 11 2012

COP 02

G eneva

COP 03

K yoto

COP 04

BuenosAires

COP 05

B onn

C O P 06

T he Hague

COP 06bis

B onn

COP 10

BuenosAires

C O P 08

New D elhi

COP 09

Milan

COP 11

Montr eal

C O P 12

Nair obi

COP 13

B ali

COP 14

Poznan

C O P 15

Copenhagen

C O P 16

C ancun

C O P 17

D ur ban

COP 18

D oha

COP 19

War s aw

2013

201 2 201 3

I N C 11

New Y or k

COP 07

Mar r akech

COP 0 1

Berlin

Copsthrough

years

Globalissuesdiscussed

Issueson

adaptation


2/11

0

0

10 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10 0

%

Copsthrough

years

199 5 1 996 1997 199 8 19 99 2 000 2 001 2002 200 3 20 04 20 05 2 006 2007 200 8 20 09 2 010 2 011 2012

C O P 0 2

Ge n e v a

C O P 0 3

Kyoto

C O P 0 4

BuenosAires

C O P 0 5

Bonn

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

Bonn

COP 10

BuenosAires

C O P 0 8

New Delhi

C O P 0 9

M ila n

C O P 1 1

Montreal

C O P 1 2

N a ir o b i

C O P 1 3

Bali

C O P 1 4

Poznan

COP 15

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

Cancun

C O P 1 7

Durban

C O P 1 8

Doha

C O P 1 9

Warsaw

2013

201 2 20 13

IN C 1 1

New York

C O P 0 7

Marrakech

COP 01

Berlin

UN F CCC re p o rt in g d o c u me n t s o n a d a p t a t io n

UN F CCC d e c isio n s d o c u me n t s o n a d a p t a t io n

UN F CCC a d v o c a c y d o c u me n t s o n a d a p t a t io n

EN B n e g o t ia t io n re p o rt s o n a d a p t a t io n

L E G E N D

20 y ears of negotiationso n a d a p t a t i o n a t UNFCCC COPsThe dynamics of adaptation commitments visualised through UNFCCC documents, ENB negotiationr e p o r t s , C FU f u n d in g s a n d w o r ld w id e e v e n t s

2/4

EMAPS SPRINT6-10 january 2014

Project by


Paolo Ciuccarelli

Richard RogersTommaso Venturini

ENB shows adaptation that if adaptation is present in the negoti-ations since the beginning, it only starts assuming greater atten-tion since COP5 (1999) pushed by most vulnerable countries.Attention falls in The Hague (2000) with the controversy on USproposals on sinks, but only to rise again since 200, reaching amaximum at New Delhi (2002) and remaining very high untilNairobi (2006). Firmly established, adaptation becomes lessurgent, especially as the post-Kyoto debate rises.

The UNFCCC confirms in the light of different elements of thenegotiation process. Whereas reporting documents confirm earlyfocus on collection of information on vulnerability and nationaladaptation needs, the Conferences decisions and actors submis-sions show the increasing institutionalisation of adaptation.

Hereunder, the relative importance of all adaptation relatedissues in 4 different datasets is displayed: the Earth NegotiationBulletins (ENB); UNFCCC Parties reporting documents;UNFCCC decisions; and UNFCCC advocacy documents submit-ted by countries, NGOs and IGOs. For ENB the share of adapta-tion is calculated as the % of paragraphs containing noun-phrasesrelated to adaptation; for UNFCCC documents, as the % of docu-ments categorized by the Secretariat with tags related to adapta-tion.


3/11

20 y ears of negotiationso n a d a p t a t i o n a t UNFCCC COPsE v o lu t io n o f t h e d if f e r e n t t h e m e s d is c u s s e d d u r in g e a c h C O P s in E N B n e g o t ia t io n r e p o r t s

3/4

1995 19 96 1 997 1 998 1999 200 0 20 01 20 02 2 003 2004 200 5 20 06 2 007 2 008 2009 201 0 20 11 2 012 2013

2012 201 3

C O P 0 2

Geneva

C O P 0 3

Kyoto

C O P 0 4

BuenosAires

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

Bonn

C O P 1 0

BuenosAires

C O P 0 8

New Delhi

C O P 0 9

M ila n

C O P 1 1

Montreal

C O P 1 2

N a ir o b i

C O P 1 3

Bali C O P 1 4

Poznan

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

Cancun

C O P 1 7

DurbanC O P 1 8

D o h a

C O P 1 9

Warsaw

IN C 1 1

New York

C O P 0 7

Marrakech

COP 01

Berlin

Energy + technology transfer

Models and IPCC

Transport sector

Adaptation funding & equity

GHGs & emission measures

Land use & forests

Vulnerability + adaptation action

Kyoto protocol

Social & environmental impacts

Compliance enforcement

CDM + carbon offsets

Post-Kyoto and Redd


Models and IPCC

Transport sector



Land use & forests



Kyoto protocol




Models and IPCC

Transport sector



Land use & forests



Kyoto protocol



Redd + post-Kyoto


Transport sector



Land use & forests



Kyoto protocol



Redd + post-Kyoto

Models and IPCC


Project by


Paolo Ciuccarelli



4/11

1995 19 96 1 997 1 998 1999 200 0 20 01 20 02 2 003 2004 200 5 20 06 2 007 2 008 2009 201 0 20 11 2 012 2013

2012 201 3

C O P 0 2

Geneva

C O P 0 3

Kyoto

C O P 0 4

BuenosAires

C O P 0 5

B onn

C O P 0 6

The H a g ue

COP 06bis

Bonn

C O P 1 0

BuenosAires

C O P 0 8

New Delhi

C O P 0 9

M ila n

C O P 1 1

Montreal

C O P 1 2

N a ir obi

C O P 1 3

Bali C O P 1 4

Poznan

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

Cancun

C O P 1 7

DurbanC O P 1 8

D oha

C O P 1 9

Warsaw

IN C 1 1

New York

C O P 0 7

Marrakech

COP 01

Berlin

20 y ears of negotiationso n a d a p t a t i o n a t UNFCCC COPsE v olut ion of t he dif f er ent t hem es dis c us s ed dur ing ea c h C OP s in E N B neg ot ia t ion r ep or t s

3/4

COP (2000), with strong disagreements on the type of fund, itsfunding modalities and competences. With growing concernamong all Parties to meet the main conventions objective (miti-gation), vulnerability, impacts and adaptation action and fundingdebates constantly grew from Marrakech (2000) to Bali (2007),

becoming since then a mainstream issue. The New Delhi (2002)and Buenos Aires (2004) COPs will thus be known as the COPsof adaptation. On the aftermath of several extreme weatherevents, Montreal (2005) marked the end of the narrative of invul-nerability in developed countries, and with it, the controversy on

adaptation vs mitigation was "closed". Discussions moved sinceNairobi (2006) toward the operationalisation of funds. withgrowing evidence on climate change. Since then, and speciallyafter the Copenhagen failure, the the agenda was reconfigured byto raising issues of concern and debate during the following COPs

: the definition of a new post-2012 universal Protocol for reduc -ing emissions, the growing recognition of the social dimensions ofclimate change impacts, and the progressive enshrinement of theloss and damage approach.

Adaptation and equity related issues have always been high onthe negotiations agenda. But not always at the same degree.Developed countries responsibility for adverse effects of climatechange was a major issue during the early negotiations on theConvention (before 1995). If political compromises will downplay

adaptation and focus will be limited to assessing climate changeimpacts and country vulnerability during the first COPs, vulnera-ble countries bargain strategy will manage to include adaptationfunding provisions in the Kyoto Protocol (1995). Debates aboutthe mechanisms to ensure this, reached critical levels at Hague




Post-Kyoto and Redd

Post-Kyoto and Redd





Project by

Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou

Kari De Pryck

Martina Elisa Cecchi

Nicolas Baya-LaffitePaolo Ciuccarelli

Richard Rogers

Tommaso Venturini


5/11

1995 19 96 1 997 1 998 1999 200 0 20 01 20 02 2 003 2004 200 5 20 06 2 007 2 008 2009 201 0 20 11 2 012 20132012 201 3

C O P 0 2

Geneva

C O P 0 3

Kyoto

C O P 0 4

BuenosAires

C O P 0 5

B onn

C O P 0 6

The H a g ue

COP 06bis

Bonn

C O P 1 0

BuenosAires

C O P 0 8

New Delhi

C O P 0 9

M ila n

C O P 1 1

Montreal

C O P 1 2

N a ir obi

C O P 1 3

Bali C O P 1 4

Poznan

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

Cancun

C O P 1 7

DurbanC O P 1 8

D oha

C O P 1 9

Warsaw

IN C 1 1

New York

C O P 0 7

Marrakech

COP 01

Berlin

Land use & forests

Kyoto protocol


3/4

Three events bring back mitigation to a certain level of attention:the US refusal to ratify the Protocol (Bonn 20 01) Russias hesita-tion to enter the KP after US and Australia's withdrawal (NewDelhi 2003); and its entering into force following the 55th coun-try ratification (Montreal 2005). Since The Hague (2004) debates

on US proposal to include carbon sinks (forests and agriculture)as well as on support for developing countries to meet reductionsbecame the major issue. In this context, the mechanisms land-usechange and forestry (LULUCF), CDM projects, and compliancewill raise strong debates. Buenos Aires (2004) and Bali (2007)

COP will see agreement and progressive stabilisation of issuespertaining to technology transfer for fuel emission reductions,CDM and forestry management projects and the constant rise ofREDD and post-Kyoto debates. Mitigation is definitely back tothe front issues with the expiration of the KP since the need to

think in terms of post-Kyoto and a renewed concern on energyand technology transfer. The failure Copenhagen COP failure toadopt binding commitments, and pushing the deadline for a newuniversal climate to 2015.

While both adaptation and mitigation are core elements of theUNFCCC, mitigation has had priority on the agenda from thebeginning of the UNFCCC negotiations. Talks started in Berlin(1995) with the aim of reaching an agreement on a binding frame-work to reduce GHGs emissions, which culminated with the

adoption of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (KP) and its flexible mecha -nism. Since then the issue of emission mitigation was lessdiscussed within the UNFCCC arena and adaptation gainedvisibility. Debate mostly evolved around technical and practicalquestions regarding the operationalization of the agreement.



Post-Kyoto and Redd

Post-Kyoto and Redd


Land use & forests

Kyoto protocol



Project by


Kari De Pryck



Richard Rogers

Tommaso Venturini


6/11

1995 19 96 1 997 1 998 1999 200 0 20 01 20 02 2 003 2004 200 5 20 06 2 007 2 008 2009 201 0 20 11 2 012 20132012 201 3

C O P 0 2

Geneva

C O P 0 3

Kyoto

C O P 0 4

BuenosAires

C O P 0 5

B onn

C O P 0 6

The H a g ue

COP 06bis

Bonn

C O P 1 0

BuenosAires

C O P 0 8

New Delhi

C O P 0 9

M ila n

C O P 1 1

Montreal

C O P 1 2

N a ir obi

C O P 1 3

Bali C O P 1 4

Poznan

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

Cancun

C O P 1 7

DurbanC O P 1 8

D oha

C O P 1 9

Warsaw

IN C 1 1

New York

C O P 0 7

Marrakech

COP 01

Berlin



3/4

treal (2005) and Nairobi (2006) to the end of the controversy onadaptation vs New Delhi (2002) and Buenos Aires (2004) willenshrine the recognition that vulnerability and adaptation mea-sures are a mainstream issue in the UNFCCC process, leadingthrough Montreal (2005) and Nairobi (2006) to the end of the

controversy on adaptation vs. mitigation. This became evident inthe 2007 Balis four pillars including adaptation, alongside withmitigation, technology transfer and finance in a shared vision forlong-term cooperative action. Since Poznan, adaptation actionfalls as a focus of attention and concern. On the one hand, the

Copenhagen failure reconfigured priorities for the followingCOPs, focused on the definition of a new post-2012 universalProtocol for reducing emissions. On the other hand, the recentCOPs saw the growth of debates on funding, as well as theincreasing importance of social justice dimensions of climate

change around the loss and damage concept.

The place of vulnerability and adaptation policy as a focus negoti-ations in the UNFCCC has clearly evolved over the COPs. Where-as it was present but not at the core of negotiations in the earlyCOPs focused on reaching an agreement on a binding frameworkto reduce GHGs emissions leading to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol

(KP) and its flexible mechanisms, the issue constantly grew fromMarrakech (2000) to Buenos Aires (2004). The COPs of adapta-tion, New Delhi (2002) and Buenos Aires (2004) will enshri nethe recognition that vulnerability and adaptation measures are amainstream issue in the UNFCCC process, leading through Mon-



Kyoto protocol


Post-Kyoto and Redd

Post-Kyoto and Redd



Kyoto protocol



Project by


Kari De Pryck



Richard Rogers

Tommaso Venturini


7/11

20 y ears of negotiationso n a d a p t a t i o n a t UNFCCC COPsE v o lu t io n o f c o u n t r y p a r t e c ip a t io n s d u r in g e a c h C O P s in E N B n e g o t ia t io n r e p o r t s

4/4

The diagram shows the number of intervention in the nego-tiations of the 21 most active countries of the UNFCCCdebate (as reported in the Earth Negotiation Bulletin). Thesize of the flow is proportional to the number of paragraphsof the ENB reports in which the name of each of the top21countries is mentioned. The data are calculated COP byCOP. The flows are ranked by the number of mentions (thehighest flow for each COP correspond to the country most

active in that COP, the lowest the least active country).The diagram shows a remarkable stability. Most countriestends to maintain their relative rank throughout the 19COPs. There are however a few notable exceptions thatwell see in the next graph.

1995 19 96 1 997 1 998 1999 200 0 20 01 20 02 2 003 2004 200 5 20 06 2 007 2 008 2009 201 0 20 11 2 012 20132012 201 3

C O P 0 2

Geneva

C O P 0 3

Kyoto

C O P 0 4

BuenosAires

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

Bonn

C O P 1 0

BuenosAires

C O P 0 8

New Delhi

C O P 0 9

M ila n

C O P 1 1

Montreal

C O P 1 2

N a ir o b i

C O P 1 3

Bali

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

Cancun

C O P 1 7

Durban

C O P 1 9

Warsaw

IN C 1 1

New York

C O P 0 7

Marrakech

COP 01

Berlin

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 1 4

Poznan C O P 1 8

D o h aUnited States

United States

United States

United States

China

China

China

China

Europe

Europe

Europe

Europe

Philippines

Australia

Australia

Australia AustraliaJapan

Japan

Japan

Germany

Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia

Canada

Canada

Canada

Kuwait

India

India

Tavalu

Tavalu

New Zealand

New ZealandNew Zealand

New Zealand

Russian Federation

Switzerland

Switzerland

Switzerland

Mexico

Mexico

Philippines

Philippines

Kuwait

Brazil

Brazil

Brazil Brazil

Argentina

Argentina

Argentina

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

Mexico

Mexico

India

India

Kuwait

Philippines

Philippines

Boliv ia

Bolivia

Norway

Norway

Norway

Norway

South Africa

Mexico

Boliv ia

Boliv iaTavalu

Boliv ia

Boliv ia

Russian Federation

Russian Federation

Argentina

Kuwait

Kuwait

Germany

Russian Federation

South Africa

South Africa

South Africa

Germany

Germany

Switzerland

Japan

Canada

Saudi Arabia


Project by


Paolo Ciuccarelli



8/11


9/11

20 y ears of negotiationso n a d a p t a t i o n a t UNFCCC COPsE v olut ion of p ea king c ount r ies dur ing ea c h C OP s in E N B neg ot ia t ion r ep or t s

4/4

A few countries have punctual pics of visibility in somespecific COPS.Mexico scores relatively low for most of the negotiations,but jumps to the 5th position in the COP16 that it hosted inCancun.Even more interesting is the trajectory of Tuvalu. Startingfrom the Kyoto COP3, the tiny pacific island has enteredand remained in the top20 of the most visible countries of

UNFCCC (which is in itself a remarkable results). ButTuvalu reaches the 13th position in Poznan COP14, the 9thposition in Copenhague COP15 and 12th in CancunCOP16.Argentina has a particularly discontinuous trajectories,peaking in the top10 in COP4 Buenos Aires (9th position),COP10 Buenos Aires (7th position) and COP17 Durban(8th position).

1995 19 96 1 997 1 998 1999 200 0 20 01 20 02 2 003 2004 200 5 20 06 2 007 2 008 2009 201 0 20 11 2 012 20132012 201 3

C O P 0 2

Geneva

C O P 0 3

Kyoto

C O P 0 4

BuenosAires

C O P 0 6

The H a g ue

COP 06bis

Bonn

C O P 1 0

BuenosAires

C O P 0 8

New Delhi

C O P 0 9

M ila n

C O P 1 1

Montreal

C O P 1 2

N a ir obi

C O P 1 3

Bali

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

Cancun

C O P 1 7

Durban

C O P 1 9

Warsaw

IN C 1 1

New York

C O P 0 7

Marrakech

COP 01

Berlin

C O P 0 5

B onn

C O P 1 4

Poznan C O P 1 8

D oha

Argentina

Tavalu

Mexico


Project by


Kari De Pryck



Richard Rogers

Tommaso Venturini


10/11

20 y ears of negotiationso n a d a p t a t i o n a t UNFCCC COPsE v olut ion of dec lining c ount r ies p a r t ec ip a t ions dur ing ea c h C OP s in E N B neg ot ia t ion r ep or t s

4/4

Observing the diagram it is possible to observe the dramaticdisengagement of the Canada from the climate negotiations.Scoring very high in the first COPs (starting from BerlinCOP1, Canada remains in the top6 until Bali COP13),Canada falls suddenly starting from COP14 Poznam in2008. It is worth to remember that in 2006 Canada changedits Prime Minister (with Stephen Harper entering intooffice) and that in 2011 Canada left the Kyoto protocol.

A steep decline can be observed also for Germany afterCOP2 Geneva, but it this declined is explained by theincreasing importance of the UE as a unique negotiatinggroup.

1995 19 96 1 997 1 998 1999 200 0 20 01 20 02 2 003 2004 200 5 20 06 2 007 2 008 2009 201 0 20 11 2 012 20132012 201 3

C O P 0 2

Geneva

C O P 0 3

Kyoto

C O P 0 4

BuenosAires

C O P 0 6

The H a g ue

COP 06bis

Bonn

C O P 1 0

BuenosAires

C O P 0 8

New Delhi

C O P 0 9

M ila n

C O P 1 1

Montreal

C O P 1 2

N a ir obi

C O P 1 3

Bali

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

Cancun

C O P 1 7

Durban

C O P 1 9

Warsaw

IN C 1 1

New York

C O P 0 7

Marrakech

COP 01

Berlin

C O P 0 5

B onn

C O P 1 4

Poznan C O P 1 8

D oha

CanadaCanada

Germany

Germany


Project by


Kari De Pryck



Richard Rogers

Tommaso Venturini


11/11

20 y ears of negotiationso n a d a p t a t i o n a t UNFCCC COPsEvolution of stable protagonists during each COPs in ENB negotiation reports

4/4

The top10 of the most active countries is stably occupied

by a small group of countries: United States, China, Europe,

Australia, Japan.

In particular China never score lower than 3rd position;

Europe never below the 4th position and Unites States

never below the 6th position.

1995 19 96 1 997 1 998 1999 200 0 20 01 20 02 2 003 2004 200 5 20 06 2 007 2 008 2009 201 0 20 11 2 012 20132012 201 3

C O P 0 2

Geneva

C O P 0 3

Kyoto

C O P 0 4

BuenosAires

C O P 0 6

The Ha g ue

COP 06bis

Bonn

C O P 1 0

BuenosAires

C O P 0 8

New Delhi

C O P 0 9

Milan

C O P 1 1

Montreal

C O P 1 2

Nairobi

C O P 1 3

Bali

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

Cancun

C O P 1 7

Durban

C O P 1 9

Warsaw

IN C 1 1

New York

C O P 0 7

Marrakech

COP 01

Berlin

C O P 0 5

B onn

C O P 1 4

Poznan C O P 1 8

D ohaUnited States

China

Europe

Australia

Japan

United States

China

Europe

Australia

Japan


Project by


Kari De Pryck



Richard Rogers

Tommaso Venturini

Twenty years of negotiations on adaptation at UNFCCC COPs

Documents