Today marks the end of the latest round of climate negotiations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bonn, Germany. The talks over the past two weeks marked the shift from largely theoretical debates on key climate issues including emissions targets, developing country commitments, technology transfer, and adaptation to concrete text. The formal negotiations included a reading of the draft negotiating text for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. {Text in brackets like these} indicates words or topics where different countries (parties) have yet to settle on common ideas or vocabulary.
Interestingly, the first reading of the text started with the sections on adaptation, the area where there is the shortest history in the negotiations and perhaps the least consensus to date. The good news is that this early start on adaptation means that countries have actually been able to confront some particularly thorny questions head-on, including:
1. How much money is actually required to support adaptation? In other words, what will adaptation cost? Various studies suggest numbers ranging from less than $20 to over $80 billion USD annually.
2. How can that money be most constructively channeled to developing countries? Dialogue has centered on the strengths and weaknesses of existing vehicles, such as the Global Environment Facility, new direct access options, and setting up of national climate trusts.
3. Which countries should be prioritized? New discussions are focused on defining "most vulnerable” countries separate from existing categories, such as "least developed countries" and “small island states”
4. What are possible mechanisms to ensure adaptation funds are provided additional to traditional development assistance? What are the implications of separating development and adaptation projects and practices on the ground?
5. How can adaptation funding flows and activities be monitored, reported, and verified (MRV)? Are existing institutions and vehicles, such as the National Communications, adequate?
The bad news is that we are nowhere near resolving many of these issues as yet. A series of parallel meetings at the halfway point of the negotiations (called
Development and Climate Day) also tackled some of these topics, but even outside the negotiations the presentations and discussions raised more questions than they resolved. The last question on MRV was particularly contentious.
The challenge lies in the problem separating out monitoring of adaptation funding allocation (has money been disbursed, as promised?) from the monitoring of activities on the ground (have projects actually reduced vulnerability?). Both of these questions are extraordinarily difficult to answer, let alone, to answer as well as we will be needed to design effective adaptation finance mechanisms. In many cases, successful adaptation means that negative outcomes were avoided. This suggests that we will be faced with measuring adaptation benefits of climate impact—such as deaths from droughts, floods, or severe weather—that haven’t happened.
What’s Next?
A second reading of the adaptation text took place on Tuesday, June 9, and saw several countries add or correct their own contributions. However, official debate between countries and within groups, such as the G-77 and China, will not resume until the next round of climate talks in August.
We are still learning from our experiences with measuring the effectiveness of international development activities. As negotiators return to the details of the adaptation text, these lessons are likely to emerge within the political debates on adaptation that will continue from now until the landmark negotiations in Copenhagen this coming December.
Shalini Vajjhala is a fellow at Resources for the Future where she studies the social impacts of large-scale physical and economic phenomena.