The Copenhagen Legal Instrument for Adaptation

Introduction

Thea Dickinson (a researcher for the Clean Air Partnership in Toronto, Canada) and Ian Burton (an Emeritus Professor at the University of Toronto and a Scientist Emeritus with the Meteorological Service of Canada) write,

“The current design for National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPAs) is not adequate for the post-Kyoto period; New National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) need to be initiated in a continuing process and should be incorporated into a country’s long term sustainable development, with a strategic approach that addresses both policy and specific adaptation measures; The past complacent approach of ‘trickle down adaptation’ is not enough. There must be a ‘flood up’ of ideas and support for substantial adaptation commitments. Do not wait for instructions of further guidance. Act now.”

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Global Cities Institute. Readers should note that Global Cities Institute seeks a diversity of views and opinions on contentious topics in order to identify common ground.

The Copenhagen Legal Instrument for Adaptation       

By Thea Dickinson and Ian Burton

In December 2009, Denmark will host the 15th Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC). At COP 15 in Copenhagen it is the intention to conclude a new binding global climate agreement.  The Bali Action Plan, established during the December 2007 COP13, includes adaptation as one of the four main pillars (together with mitigation, finance, and technology) of the new post-Kyoto agreement. If they are to be successfully completed, the negotiations in Copenhagen will involve new commitments on adaptation.  As a contribution, we offer the following suggestions for inclusion in the Copenhagen Legal Instrument for Adaptation (LIFA).

The Adaptation (Copenhagen) Protocol

Reflecting the format of the Kyoto Protocol, the following text could be used for inclusion in an Adaptation (Copenhagen) Protocol where each Party commits to reducing impacts from climate change by adaptation and shall; implement and/or further elaborate policies and measures in accordance with its national circumstances, such as:

1. Enhance proactive adaptation in all relevant component of the national economy, society and environment;
2. Implement adaptation measures into all development and relevant policy decisions at all levels in both private and public sectors;
3. Promote adaptation through multilateral bodies, the public and private sector and civil society
4. Research, encourage, share, develop and increase the use of new and available technology that decreases impacts and increases adaptive capacity
5. Provide fiscal incentives, tax and duty exemptions and regulations for adaptation measures and initiatives
6. Implement measures to decrease barriers to adaptation by promoting the building of adaptive capacity
7. Ensure funding availability to assist adaptation in the most vulnerable developing countries
8. Establish international and regional cooperation on adaptation for the management of transboundary and multi-national issues including trade.

The implementation of this agreement would require the establishment of an adaptation strategy as an ongoing process embodied in a National Adaptation Plan. The remainder of this paper outlines the need and methods for establishing Adaptation Plans nationally.

1. All Parties will prepare and regularly update National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). 

National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPAs) have been completed by 32 of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs). These plans are a respectable start; however, support for NAPAs through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is only available to the 49 countries classified as LDCs.  The International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 2008 classified 152 countries as emerging and/or developing.  These other 103 countries are, of course, at liberty to prepare their own adaptation plans without support under the UNFCCC. Not surprisingly, very few, if any, have done so. The preparation of National Adaptation Plans should be extended to all Parties, and financial support for this should be provided to all emerging and developing countries under the UNFCCC. For this purpose the NAPA model is not sufficient since it is focused only on urgent needs. New National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) need to be initiated in a continuing process and should be incorporated into a country’s long term sustainable development, with a strategic approach that addresses both policy and specific adaptation measures. As many as ten European countries have developed or are developing National Adaptation Plans.  This process needs to be extended swiftly to all countries and financially supported in developing countries.

2. NAPs should address adaptation in terms of sectors, risks, and by region and community.

The design of a NAP is not straightforward. First, NAPs should include a sector by sector approach to adaptation including: agriculture, water resources, livestock, forestry, fisheries, infrastructure and human settlements, human health, natural ecosystems and others. It is also not sufficient to treat these sectors as homogenous entities. For example adaptation in agriculture can refer to subsistence crops or commercial and export-led crops; to subsistence crops; and to grains, fruit, root and tree crops, vegetables, cattle fodder, or bio fuels. Secondly, NAPs should incorporate a risk management approach to climate related hazards such as drought, floods, and storms; as well as disaster reduction and management; and emerging diseases and pests affecting humans, plants and animals. Lastly, NAPs should take account of the geographical variations in climate impacts in different sizes of community from small villages to major cities, while recognizing the risks associated with specific locations such as flood plains, coastal, mountainous, and semi-arid regions.

3. The methodology for NAPs needs to be developed and shared.

Given that the development of NAPs is a new process, with minimal knowledge or experience in their formulation and implementation, it is therefore suggested that available knowledge and experienced should be assembled and transferred to ensure further successful development of NAPs. This is potentially a role for the Nairobi Work Programme; however, this process can also be supported outside the UNFCCC through the work of development agencies and direct bilateral assistance.

4. A sufficient and assured level of funding is required both for plan preparation and implementation.

Funding for adaptation under the UNFCCC and through the GEF has been poor and inconsistent. Under the new LIFA agreement there must be a guaranteed level of sufficient funds both to prepare the NAPs and keep them up to date. Adaptation to climate change is a continuous and changing process. Funds for adaptation planning and implementation can also be provided directly to developing countries as part of development assistance, but it is important that a lead be given by the UNFCCC to help develop consistency and maintain momentum of approaches and methods. The new Adaptation Fund from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) activities in the Kyoto Protocol can also be a source of financial support for NAPs.

5. A budget support approach would be more effective.

Adaptation funds made available under the Convention and through the GEF have been associated with high transaction costs and an ineffective process of project proposal development and review. It would be more effective, where circumstances warrant, for financial support for adaptation to be made available in multi-year allocations and on a sector-by-sector basis rather than a project-by-project basis. Parties receiving funds in support of adaptation could deploy these funds over a three to five year period in support of programmes that are strategically designed and include policy review as well as specific measures. Accountability could be assured by the development of results indicators and measures of achievement. Renewal or continuation of funding would depend upon satisfactory demonstration of results.

6. Linking adaptation to mitigation

Until now, the UNFCCC has treated adaptation and mitigation as almost entirely separate endeavours. The development of a NAP should enable adaptation and mitigation to be linked together in mutually reinforcing and synergistic way. Adaptation options that generate mitigation co-benefits could be privileged. Conceivably, ways could be established to link successful adaptation to carbon credits both for donors and recipients.

7. Next Steps

If these and similar ideas are to find their way into the Copenhagen Legal Instrument for Adaptation (LIFA) and form part of the broad post-Kyoto agreement they must be widely debated, refined, clarified and expanded. They need to be presented in a persuasive fashion to the Parties, to the UNFCCC, and especially to the negotiators in the Copenhagen process.  The ideas alone will not suffice. They need to be backed by widespread understanding and support. In the face of what is now, regrettably, unavoidable climate change, a world wide adaptation movement is emerging. The past complacent approach of “trickle down adaptation” is not enough. There must be a “flood up” of ideas and support for substantial adaptation commitments. Do not wait for instructions of further guidance. Act now.

Information about the authors

Thea Dickinson is a researcher for the Clean Air Partnership in Toronto, Canada.  She holds a Masters degree in Environmental Science from the University of Toronto. She recently conducted an Inventory of National Adaptation Strategies.  Her most recent publication is The Compendium of Adaptation Models for Climate Change, published by the Adaptation Impacts Research Division at Environment Canada (thea.dickinson@rogers.com).

Ian Burton is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Toronto and a Scientist Emeritus with the Meteorological Service of Canada. He has been a Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report, Working Group II, and has recently served as a consultant with the World Bank and the Secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on the Nairobi Work Programme. He is co-chair on the Ontario Government’s Expert Advisory Panel on Adaptation. Ian is a Visiting Fellow at the International Institute of Environment and Development in London. Currently, he works mainly on the integration of science into the policy process. (ian.burton@ec.gc.ca).

Global Cities Institute-RMIT University, Australia invites your responses

AdaptNet invites your responses to this essay/article. Please send responses to the editor of AdaptNet, Saleem Janjua: adaptnet@rmit.edu.au

Responses will be considered for redistribution to the network only if they include the author's name, affiliation and explicit consent.

AdaptNet subscription information

This article was distributed by AdaptNet. AdaptNet is a free weekly report produced by RMIT University Global Cities Institute's Climate Change Adaptation Working Group, Melbourne, Australia.

• Subscribe or unsubscribe.
• View the archive
• AdaptNet: 2006, 2007, 2008.
• Policy Forums: 2008.
  
• Special Reports: 2008.
  

For further information, please contact the editor, Saleem Janjua.