Writing the fine print: Developing regional insurance for climate change adaptation in the pacific

Negotiating failure: understanding the geopolitics of climate change

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was signed by some 153 countries at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 1992, represented a singular triumph for the geographically dispersed group of island states and low‐lying coastal developing countries, located in the Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans, as well as in the Caribbean, South China and Mediterranean Seas, and known as the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). This article focuses on the goals of AOSIS during the negotiations leading up to the adoption of the UNFCCC. For the first time in the history of the United Nations, a group of small states, hitherto relegated to the sidelines, was able to develop a specific negotiating agenda addressing areas which are of overriding concern to them and succeeded in having those concerns incorporated in a legally binding Convention of historic importance. As this article reveals, AOSIS set itself 12 negotiating goals during the negotiating rounds leading up to the UNFCCC, and 10 of these 12 goals were realized.Nevertheless, AOSIS, whose member states are most vulnerable to the possible adverse effects of climate change, was particularly concerned about those provisions of the UNFCCC that were either watered‐down significantly, made largely meaningless or excluded altogether. These include: the absence of definite targets or specific timetables for the significant reduction of carbon dioxide by the industrialized countries of the North; the lack of permanent and clear financing arrangements in particular the lack of definitive financial provisions for adaptive response measures to the adverse impacts of climate change such as sea‐level rise; and the absence of a specific provision for the implementation of coastal zone management schemes for those countries most vulnerable to sea‐level rise.As the UNFCCC moves into the implementation phase, AOSIS should and must build on its past success. To do so, it will need to develop clearly defined initiatives aimed at strengthening the commitments for financing and insurance, and to seek inclusion of a provision to develop and finance coastal zone management schemes for the most vulnerable small states. While the article covers the AOSIS negotiating period up to and including the Earth Summit in June 1992, we nevertheless postulate some possible objectives which the AOSIS group might wish to consider in what is sure to be an intensive post‐Earth Summit phase of the UNFCCC, leading up to the first Conference of the Parties of that Convention.

Chapter 6: Insurance industry

The Adaptation Fund of the Kyoto Protocol is seen by many as a model for financing adaptation activities, which should also play a strong role in the institutional design of the Green Climate Fund under the UNFCCC. The article analyses whether the status of operationalization of the Adaptation Fund meets international institutional criteria and requirements for an effective and efficient fund arrangement. These are derived from the UNFCCC and the Paris Agenda on Aid Effectiveness. The analysis shows that the Adaptation Fund meets most of the funding requirements. Due to its institutional features, particularly the direct-access modality, the Adaptation Fund has the potential to practically link international climate change with development finance for adaptation to climate change. However, the analysis also shows that there are a number of challenges remaining, including criteria which the fund does not meet yet and the practical implementation of fund operations, particularly at the national level.

Introduction to <i>Climate Change Adaptation in New York City: Building a Risk Management Response</i>

Climate negotiations: time to implement planetary health promises

Effective Community Engagement Approaches for Climate Change Adaptation in the Philippines

Climate Change (CC) paired with the rapidly growing world population call for new approaches to land management that are both sustainable and accommodate the complex interactions between social systems and environment. To this end, it is important not only to mitigate CC by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also to adapt to the changing environmental conditions Agriculture, forestry and other land uses are responsible for almost a quarter (24%) of global anthropogenic GHG emissions (IPCC, 2014) and hence have a high potential for both CC mitigation and adaptation. Additionally agriculture and forests coexist in the same landscape and are deeply interlinked. Agriculture is central in CC discourses not only because it`s the largest driver of deforestation and forest degradation (Hosonuma, 2012) but also because it`s the sector that is highly impacted by CC, which most often results in a decline in agriculture yield. This highlights the need of innovation towards adaptive agriculture, entailing higher production with fewer inputs. Forests are important because they play a major role in CC mitigation, via carbon storage in their biomass, and in providing ecosystem services that are crucial for agriculture, such as water, pollination and control of pests and diseases. The recognition of interlinkages amongst forests, agriculture and other land uses led to a new line of thinking: the "Climate--Smart Landscape" (CSL) approach (Scherr et al., 2012; CSL is an integrated, landscape--level approach that widens the scope from the farm level to the landscape level, allowing analyses of landscape dynamics that lead to deforestation and assess the trades--off between land uses "Landscape" is defined here in broad conceptual terms: rather than being simply a physical space, it represents a complex system with mutually interacting social, biophysical, human ecological and economic dimensions Additionally, CSL emphasizes stakeholder involvement and simultaneous achievement of multiple objectives (Sunderland, 2012) including food security, Ecosystem conservation, rural livelihoods, CC mitigation and adaptation. The transition to CSL relies upon effective policies and the involvement of stakeholders in different layers of governance, such as policy makers, local farmers, researchers, NGOs and agribusiness companies. Additionally, effective CSL rely upon communication and social learning among these stakeholders. It`s based upon national policies that take into account drivers of deforestation and forest degradation (DD) and upon regional policies that take into account how local stakeholders make land use decisions: without such understanding policies are unlikely to be effective. Moreover, a shift towards CSL relies upon the organization aspect of innovation: CSA adoption, as any other innovation is not only based upon technical knowledge, but also social learning and social organization. Such learning also contributes to promote adaptive capacity, which is based upon continuous learning by doing and trial and error. Additionally CSL can be supported by collective action: a shift towards CSL cannot be achieved by a single individual but it relies upon collaboration among different stakeholders. Despite the interlinkages of forests and agriculture and their role in CC mitigation and adaptation, these sectors have been managed by different initiatives in the policy arena. In particular, two initiatives gained attention to enable CC adaptation and mitigation. The first one is the United Nations Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, conservation of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of carbon stocks (REDD+). REDD+ is a potentially powerful vehicle for stimulating developing countries to practise mitigation by reducing GHG emissions and also to implement adaptation measures through sustainable forest management. REDD+ incorporates safeguards as well, such as requirements for transparency, participation, protection of biodiversity and the rights of local people (UNFCCC, 2011). The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) emphasizes that co--benefits should be promoted while implementing REDD+ and that 'the needs of local and indigenous communities should be addressed' (UNFCCC, 2007: 8). Although REDD+ is increasingly acknowledging the importance to address drivers of DD, its emphasis is mainly on CC mitigation and forest preservation rather than CC adaptation. The second one is Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) initiative, initiated by FAO with the aim of achieving the triple wins of CC mitigation, adaptation and food security. CSA involves the use of 'climate--smart' farming techniques to produce crops or livestock, which could help lowering deforestation for agricultural use as well as enhancing productivity, build resilience to CC and mitigate the GHG emissions (Meybeck, 2013). Although CSA represents a step forward towards greater integration of adaptation and mitigation, its emphasis in practice is mainly on agricultural goals and CC adaptation (Graham, 2012) rather than on CC mitigation goals.

Setting a new record, the Durban climate conference finished in the early morning of Sunday, 11 December, one-and-a-half days after its scheduled end. The fruit of all the overtime labour was an agreement on a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a mandate to launch negotiations on a new comprehensive climate agreement, and decisions to move forward with near-term climate action on the basis of the Cancun Agreements from the previous year’s conference. This outcome constitutes a major achievement for the European Community (EC) and the most vulnerable countries, the small island developing states (SIDS), which are united in the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and the least developed countries (LDCs), who had pushed for such a negotiating mandate against strong resistance from the United States, India, China, and others. This report lays out the major developments in Durban and assesses the main outcomes. It is structured based on the Bali roadmap for a future climate agreement that was agreed upon in 2007. The Bali roadmap lays out negotiations along two tracks. First, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments by Annex I Countries under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP), which was established at the conference in Montreal in 2005, has been negotiating future emission targets for developed countries (listed in Annex I of the UNFCCC and hence called Annex I countries). As the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period expires in 2012, the AWG-KP’s mandate includes establishing new targets for a second commitment period post-2012 as well as associated rules for accounting emissions. Second, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) has also been negotiating commitments for Annex I countries, intending to cover those that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol—that is, the United States. In addition, the AWG-LCA negotiates ‘nationally appropriate mitigation actions’ of developing countries, which are to be supported by Annex I countries with technology, financing, and capacity building. Both the actions and the support are to be ‘measurable, reportable, and verifiable.’ The AWG-LCA also negotiates how such support for developing countries’ mitigation actions may be delivered as well as how developing countries may be supported in adapting to the impacts of climate change.

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are causing unprecedented changes to the climate. In 2015, at the United Nations (UN) Conference of the Parties in Paris, France, countries agreed to limit the global mean temperature (GMT) increase to 2°C above preindustrial levels, and to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C. Due to the long‐term irreversibility of sea level rise (SLR), risks to island and coastal populations are not well encapsulated by the goal of limiting GMT warming by 2100. This review article investigates the climate justice implications of temperature targets in light of our increasing understanding of the spatially variable impact and long temporal commitment to rising seas. In particular we highlight the impact that SLR will have on island states and the role of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) in UN climate negotiations. As a case study we review dual impacts from the Antarctic Ice Sheet under a changing climate: (a) recent climate and ice sheet modeling shows that Antarctic melt has the potential to cause rapid SLR with a distinct spatial pattern leading to AOSIS nations experiencing SLR at least 11% higher than the global average and up to 33% higher; and (b) future ice sheet melt will result in a negative feedback on GMT, thus delaying temperature rise. When considering these impacts in conjunction, justice concerns associated with the Paris Agreement are exacerbated.

Climate change is one of the greatest global challenges. The phenomenon and actions taken to address it have thrown up some contentious issues. One of such issues is climate justice. This paper analyses the bases for climate justice and the attempts at achieving it. The basic sources of data were the publications/documents of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Information was also obtained from the publications and websites of the climate negotiation blocs, such as G77 + China and Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and several Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) such as Climate Action Network, Oxfam, GreenPeace and Third World Network. The climate justice struggle has been necessitated mainly by two driving forces. These are the experiences of the impact of climate change and the environmental legal principles that have emerged from environmental and climate change challenges. In spite of the fact that climate change and its impact are global, vulnerabilities vary across regions and socio-economic groups. The disproportionate impact of climate change is one of the drivers of the struggle for climate justice. The environmental/climatic legal principles that have formed bases for the climate justice struggle derive largely from UNFCCC, the Rio Declaration and the Paris Agreement. They are, to an extent, related to the Principle of Disproportionate Climate Burden. The principles include Common But Differentiated Responsibilities, Polluter Pays, No-Harm (to others) and Beneficiary Pays. Strategies employed in the struggle for climate justice include advocacy, focused negotiations at CoPs, protests/strikes, and litigation. Although, the developing countries have been the leaders in the struggle for climate justice, CSOs have been particularly prominent. The demand for increased financing of climate mitigation and adaptation has been characteristic. The struggle has resulted in more climate action. However, the ultimate focus must be the achievement of net zero emissions.

The protection of global public goods is one of the most pressing challenges we are facing today. The mitigation of climate change is the most prominent example. In the next decades, global warming is feared to cause rising sea levels, melting ice and snow, increasing precipitation, extreme weather events, and widespread coastal flooding. By now, it has been almost universally recognized that these climate changes are at least influenced by human action. Since the early 1990s, the international community has, in principle, recognized this challenge. In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was concluded at the end of the Rio summit. It has been ratified by 196 parties. While there are only two international treaties, the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the corresponding Montreal Protocol, which have more ratifications than the UNFCCC, the effectiveness of the Framework Convention has been limited. In the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997 and entered into force in 2002, the states agreed for the first time on concrete targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Nevertheless, the Kyoto obligations have often been criticized as too modest. But even these modest targets have failed to prevent the significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions during this century. Major actors, such as the United States, have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, while other states have failed to comply with their reduction goals. Therefore, progress in establishing a cooperative framework for tackling climate change can, at best, be described as very slow. Some authors have suggested that treaty mechanisms might not be the optimal instrument for climate regulation, as they involve high decision-making costs. Instead, they propose customary international law as an alternative, which might, due to its flexibility, be better suited to the achieve the regulatory goals. This chapter aims to examine this hypothesis. It explores the potential of customary international law to contribute to the protection of global public goods. The analysis proceeds in the three steps. First, it will have a closer look at the concept of public goods and common pool resources. Economic theory predicts that public goods are usually underprovided and common pool resources overexploited. Experimental evidence confirms the general trend, even though the level of contributions is higher than economic theory predicts.

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) encompasses more than 40 low-lying and island developing states that are among the most vulnerable but also most vocal parties in international climate negotiations. Over the years AOSIS's strategies comprised of the building of scientific expertise, and leadership by example, but also a particular framing that puts emphasis on multilateral processes to deal with issues of common concern and established principles of the international community. The initial assumption of the paper is that a frame alignment of climate change and human rights concerns would strengthen the coalition's moral and legal arguments. However, as a frame analysis of close to 50 coalition submissions and statements reveals, such a linkage is not established. The paper concludes by outlining three possible explanatory factors for this observation: the nature of the issue area, the character of the coalition and the professional background of AOSIS negotiators.

Atoll Island States form part of the Alliance of Small Island States, a coalition of States within the United Nations that share a growing concern about the environment and the effects that climate change can have on the fragile ecosystems of islands. Their first political manifestation was at a 1989 conference held in Male, and since then they have become increasingly vocal in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations. A key demand by AOSIS in recent climate change negotiations has been the adoption of a “loss and damage proposal”, drawing on numerous principles of international law, including polluter pays, intergenerational equity, trans-boundary harm and responsibility of a State. The proposal seems to slowly be finding its way into the negotiations, with the COP18 in Doha establishing a “pathway” for such a notion, which could lead to the creation of an international solidarity fund that would compensate countries for economic and non-economic losses stemming from slow-onset climate impacts (such as coral bleaching, ocean acidification and sea level rise).

Agriculture contributes to climate change to a considerable extent. Agriculture is also among the sectors that will suffer the largest negative impacts of climate change, for which, consequently, huge adaptation efforts are needed. At the same time this sector faces the challenge of feeding a growing world population that is getting richer, leading to a tremendous increase in demand for agricultural products between now and 2050. Yet agriculture has only played a marginal role in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol. Because emissions from agriculture have been rising on a yearly basis since 1990, and because the increase in demand for agricultural products (both for food and for biofuels) will cause emissions to rise further, agriculture can no longer be ignored in international negotiations. The Paris Agreement, though, is not expected to drastically change the role of agriculture in the international legal framework on climate change mitigation and adaptation. This chapter critically assesses the current and potential role of the UNFCCC and related documents, most importantly the Kyoto Protocol, in addressing the combined challenges of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to changing climate while increasing productivity for the agricultural sector. The chapter first focuses on mitigation, next addresses adaptation and then briefly looks ahead by reviewing the Paris Agreement, which was finalized at the UNFCCC’s COP21 in December 2015.