Twenty Years of Negotiations On Adaptation at UNFCCC COPs

2 0 ye a rs o f n e g o t i ati ons on ada pta t i o n a t UNFCCC CO P s
1/4 W he n t he U N F C C C w a s ad o pt ed in 1992, adapt at io n w as largel y seen a s a n a f terthought to mi ti ga ti on. In r e c e nt yea r s , h o w ever, a dapt at io n h as beco me a key piece of the resp onse to cl i ma te cha nge.
Climate change policy is put to the highest political level. Around 115 world leaders attended the high-level segment. Post-2012 ambitious climate agreement objective was however not achieved. Instead it produced the Copenhagen Accord, agreing on the long-term goal of limiting the maximum global average temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius about pre-industrial levels, subject to a review in 2015. Reluctance to adopt binding commitments became evident, setting a new bottom up approach (opposite to the previous "top-down" approach). A number of developing countries agreed to communicate their efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions every two years.
In the following table we have an overview of negotiations per COPs and information about global and adaptation issues discussed.
EMAPS SPRINT 6-10 january 2014 Project by Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou Kari De Pryck Martina Elisa Cecchi Nicolas Baya-Lafte Paolo Ciuccarelli Richard Rogers Tommaso Venturini
The Convention was set with the ultimate objective to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interferences with the climate system. It was based on principles of sustainble development, precaution, polluter-pays, common but differentiated responsabilities (equity) and economic efciency. It was based on principles of sustainble development, precaution, polluter-pays, common but differentiated responsabilities (equity) and economic efciency.
The "Berlin Mandate" agreed on stablishing a process to negotiate strengthened commitments for developed countries in order to meet the Convention's objective.
Quantied Emissions Limitation and Reduction Objectives (QELROs) for different Parties and an acceleration of the Berlin Mandate talks were discussed. Need to favor exibility and legally binding mid-term targets was highlighted. focusing on strengthening the nancial mechanism, the development and transfer of technologies and maintaining the momentum in relation to the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. Geneva Ministerial Declaration noted but not adapted.
Adoption of Kyoto Protocol setting Annex I and Annex B countries binding emission reduction targets for the six major greenhouse gases for 2008-2009. Outilining of Kyoto mechanisms (emissions trading, CDM, JI). Developing rules for emissions trading and methodological work in relation to forest sinks remain issues for future international consideration.
Failure to resolve unnished Kyoto issues, adoption of a 2-year. Adoption of Buenos Aires Plan of Action. opened a process for nalizing the rules and operational details of the Protocol. Focus is on strengthening the nancial mechanism, the development and transfer of technologies.
Resolution of technical issues with no major agreements. Discussions focus on the adoption of the guidelines for the preparation of national communications by Annex I countries, capacity building, transfer of technology and exible mechanisms.
Debates on US proposal on including carbon sinks (forests and agriculture) and on support for developing countries to meet reductions. Rejection of compromise positions. Failure and collapse of negotiations on Bonn agreements.
Bush administration's rejection of KP leading US out of KP negotiations. Consensus reached on Bonn agreements and decisions including capacity-building for developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Decisions on several issues, notably the mechanisms land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) and compliance, remained outstanding.
Completion of Buenos Aires Plan of action. Concern about meeting the conditions to bring the KP into force after US withdrawal. Agreements reached on a package deal (the Marrakech Accords) including operational rues accounting procedures and compliance regime, consideration of LULUCF Principles in reporting and limited banking of units generated by sinks under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) (the extent to which carbon dioxide absorbed by carbon sinks can be counted towards the Kyoto targets).
Russia's hesitation threatening the Protocol's entry into force after US and Australia's withdrawal. Discussion on adequacy of developing countries commitments. Delhi work program on Article 6 of the Convention. Need to build on the outcomes of the World Summit highlighted.
Decisions on the institutions and procedures of the Kyoto Protocol and on the implementation of the UNFCCC adopted. Agreement to review national reports submitted by non-Annex I countries. Guidelines for reporting emissions adopted on the basis of IPPC's good practice guidance as a reliable foundation for reporting on changes in carbon concentrations resulting from land-use changes and forestry due to 2005. Marrakech pack completed by agreement on modalities of CDM projects on cabon-absorbing management. The COP is seen as the "forest COP".
Discussion on the framing of a new dialogue on the future of climate change policy. Emphasis is put on both mitigation and adaptation. Decisions adopted on LULUCF, funding mechanisms, adaptation response measures, and UNFCCC Article 4 on education, training and public awareness, examining the issues of adaptation and mitigation, the needs of least developed countries (LDCs). Post-2012 discussions started.
First MOP with the Protocol's entry into force. Montreal Action Plan set the road for Post-2012 agreement.
COP focused on Africa, most vulnerable countries, adaptation and capacity building. 5 year Nairobi Work Program adopted. The Nairobi Framework will provide support for developing countries in implementing CDM projects. Adoption of rules of procedure of the Protocol's compliance committee
The Bali Road Map was adopted, opeining a two-year process towards a strengthened international climate change agreement, including the four-pillars Bali Action plan for post-2012 and emission reduction from deforestation. AW-LCA to discuss the Conventions' implementation post-2012 and AW-KP for furthering commitments were created. Discussions put into question the common but differentiated principle on a purely historical basis, as regards actual responsibility for emissions, particularly from BRIC's
G lo bal issue s discusse d
Negotiating schedule for 2009 post-2012 agreement was intensied. Progress was made on a number of issues of particular importance to developing countries, namely adaptation, nance, technol ogy and REDD.
Cancun Agreements were adopted. Parties agreed on 1990-levels as base line and on IPCC's projections as reference, setting the 2C goal to limiting temperature rise above pre-industrial levels. A technology mechanism to boost the development and spread of new climate-friendly technologies making fully operational by 2012
With the Kyoto Protocol's rst engagement period comming to an end, Partie sagreed a second commitment period (2013-2020) and reached an agreement on adopting a new binding agreement comprising all countries by 2015 to take effect in 2020. Work begun under the Ad Hoc working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP). A framework for the reporting of emission reductions for both developed and developing countries was also agreed.
A timetable to adopt a new universal climate agreement by 2015 was set out. Work under the Bali Action Plan was completed. New work towards a 2015 agreement was concentrated under the ADP single negotiating stream. The Doha Climate Gateway was adopted. It included amended 2013-2020 commitments, limited to 16% scope of global CO2 emissions.
Decisions adopted included further advancing the Durban Platform, the Green Climate Fund and Long-Term Finance, the Warsaw Framework for REDD+, among other.
C op s through year s
INC 11 N ew Yo r k
COP 01 Berlin
C O P 02 Gen eva
COP 03 Kyoto
COP 04 Buenos Aires
COP 05 Bonn
CO P 0 6 The H a g ue
COP 06bis B onn
COP 0 7 Ma rra ke c h
COP 0 8 Ne w D e lhi
COP 0 9 Mila n
COP 1 0 Buenos Aires
COP 1 1 Mont re a l
COP 1 2 Na iro b i
COP 13 Bali
COP 14 Po z n a n
COP 15 Copenhagen
COP 16 Ca n c u n
COP 17 Durban
COP 18 Doha
COP 19 Wa r s aw
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2 20 01 12 2
2 20 01 13 3
State responsibility for adverse effects of climate change was raised by AOSIS and vulnerable countries, but political compromises freezed disagreement on responsability. Adaptation related issues are mentionned in many key convention commitments (e.g. article 4.4. on developed countries assisting most vulnerable countries in meeting costs (and not THE costs) of adaptation ; article 4.8 for insurance for climate change loss and damage induced impacts). Adaptation will be long downplayed during COPs and funding struggles moving outside the UNFCCC.
Issues on adaptation
Key decisions on staged approach to funding, which will last until 2002. In practice, reduced funding allocated for adaptation.
Representatives of AOSIS and African countries renewed concern about their particular vulnerability and the lack of technical and nancial resources for prevention and adaptation, and called on the GEF to play an enabling role. Focus was mainly on observing the impacts of climate change and assessing risks and vulnerabilities.
Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol set up an adaptation fund based on CER from CDM. Small vulnerable countries obtained funding for adaptation on the basis of allowing developed countries to buy offsets from bigger developing countries.
Only few references to adaptation on the need to consider the issue and its funding through CDM.
AOSIS keeps emphasing their vulnerability to global warming and underscored the need to develop long-term approaches to adaptation in the Conventions context.
Discussion are growing on the need to establish an adaptation fund, but disagreements on the type of fund, its funding modalities and competences prevailed.
Further discussions on the establishment of an adaptation fund.
The Marrakech Conference moved adaptation policy to a phase of planning and pilot implementation. NAPA's are set up. Adaptation fund and the Special Climate Change (SCC) Fund and the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Fund are created to support technology transfer, adaptation projects and other activities, taking into account national communications or NAPAs, and other relevant information provided by the applicant Party.
Developing countries called for greater focus on adaptation, but disagreements arose on the status of adaptation with regards to mitigation. Some parties have a tendency to merge both issues, while others claimed that mitigation and adaptation are separate issues. Attempts to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation did not succeed. COP-8 is with COP-10 part of the so-called "adaptation COPs".
China/G77 and AOSIS, concerned with the mixed results of mitigation measures, are pushing for more attention to adaptation needs. The COP stressed the need for developed countries to provide detailed information on their assistance to most vulnerable developing country Parties in meeting costs of adaptation.
The Buenos Aires programme of Work on Adaptation and Response Measures is established and aimed at enhancing capacity at all levels to identify and understand impacts, vulnerability and adaptation responses, and implementing practical, effective and high priority adaptation actions According to ENB: a new chapter. COP-8 is with COP-10 part of the so-called "adaptation COPs".
Adverse effects of climate change on developing and least developed countries, and several nancial and budget-related issues, including guidelines to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) were adressed. On the aftermath of several extrem weather events (Katrina, EU heatwaves, Autralia's res, droughts and oodings in Middle-income countries (MICs)) puted an end to a narrative of invulnerability in developed countries, which started considering their own adaptation needs. It is agreed that the adaptation is of high priority for all countries. The controversy on adaptation vs mitigation is "closed". The debate is moving toward adaptation fundings.
Agreement on procedures of the Adaptation Fund and Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change to assist all Parties to improve their understanding and assessment of impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, and make informed decisions on practical adaptation actions and measures (UNFCCC).
The Bali Conference marked a turning point in adaptation policy towards scaling up implementation and mainstreaming. One of the signicant outcomes bring ing together both adaptation and nance was the decision to operationalize the Adaptation Fund, which was set up to nance adaptation in developing countries. The Fund had proven to be particularly delicate to negotiate because, unlike other funds under the UNFCCC, it is funded through a levy on CDM projects undertaken in developing countries and is therefore not dependent on donors
Strenghening previous agreements and mechanisms on adaptatation. Adaptation Fund was launched under the Kyoto Protocol, to be lled by a 2% levy on projects under the CDM. It was agreed that the Adaptation Fund Board should have legal capacity to grant direct access to developing countries.
The COP mentionned the Green Climate Fund, established one year later in Cancun. Developed countries agreed to support a goal of mobilizing US$100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries to show they are still engaged in the negitiation process.
The Green Climate Fund was formally established but not agreed upon. A debate emerged about the transfer of funding from development to adaptation. The loss and damage approach gained visibility with the stablishment of a specic work program. Developed and developing countries maintained divergent views on institutional mechanisms and funding regaring loss and damage.
Agreement on Green Climate Fund Framework provide nancing for action in developing countries via thematic funding windows, including for adaptation. The Cancun Adaptation Framework aims at enhancing actions on adaptation including through international cooperation, incliding the creation of an Adaptation Committee.
Loss and damage concept formalized. Little progress on Green Climate Fund. Controversies revolved on funding for adaptation and loss and damage.
Developing and emerging countries urged for strenghened support and public nance for adaptation. NGOs abandoned the Conference making evident their lack of trust in the negotiation process. It was decided further the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage.

2/4 T he d yna m i cs o f ad apt at i o n co m m it m en t s visu alised t h ro u gh UN FCCC documents, EN B negoti a ti on rep or t s, C F U f u n d i n g s a n d wo rldw ide even t s
Hereunder, the relative importance of all adaptation related issues in 4 different datasets is displayed: the Earth Negotiation Bulletins (ENB); UNFCCC Parties reporting documents; UNFCCC decisions; and UNFCCC advocacy documents submitted by countries, NGOs and IGOs. For ENB the share of adaptation is calculated as the % of paragraphs containing noun-phrases related to adaptation; for UNFCCC documents, as the % of documents categorized by the Secretariat with tags related to adaptation.
ENB shows adaptation that if adaptation is present in the negotiations since the beginning, it only starts assuming greater attention since COP5 (1999) pushed by most vulnerable countries. Attention falls in The Hague (2000) with the controversy on US proposals on sinks, but only to rise again since 200, reaching a maximum at New Delhi (2002) and remaining very high until Nairobi (2006). Firmly established, adaptation becomes less urgent, especially as the post-Kyoto debate rises.
The UNFCCC conrms in the light of different elements of the negotiation process. Whereas reporting documents conrm early focus on collection of information on vulnerability and national adaptation needs, the Conferences decisions and actors submissions show the increasing institutionalisation of adaptation.
%
100
LEGEND
ENB negotiation reports on adaptation
90
UNFCCC reporting documents on adaptation UNFCCC decisions documents on adaptation UNFCCC advocacy documents on adaptation
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Co ps t hro u gh yea r s
INC 1 1 Ne w Yo r k
COP 01 Berlin
C O P 02 Gen eva
C O P 03 Kyo t o
C OP 04 Buenos Aires
COP 05 Bonn
COP 06 The H a gue
COP 06bis Bonn
COP 07 Ma rra kech
COP 0 8 N ew D e lhi
COP 0 9 Mila n
COP 1 1 Mont re a l
COP 1 2 Na irob i
COP 1 3 B a li
COP 1 4 Pozna n
COP 1 5 Copenhagen
COP 1 6 C a nc un
COP 1 7 D urb a n
COP 1 8 D oha
COP 19 Wa r s aw
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2 20 01 12 2
2 20 01 13 3
100
200
300
400
500
million $
Recognition of AR2 ndings on discenible human inuence over climate system. Controversies on evidence for attribution will follow US Congress rejected KP. AR3 published Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable development Katrina hurricane Subprimes crises Philippines typhoon. Scientists warn actions are insufcient to meet the 2C goal Typhoon Haiyan hits the Philippines again
Firm agreement on evidence of the reality and the origine of climate change will emerge in the AR4. IPCC received Peace Nobel Prize.
Perry et al (2009) claim UNFCCC's estimations fall short on costs of adaptation. Climategate, growing distrust in climate science
Hurricane Sandy hit NY in October. Typhoon Bopha hit Philippines
LEGEND
Scientic events Political events Natural events Asia and Pacic Europe and Central Asia Global Latin America and the Caribbean Middle East and North Africa Sub-Saharan Africa Unknown
A timeline of related worldwide scientic, political and natural events which happened during the 20 years of negotiations is displayed, along with a histogram of fundings received each year in different geographical zones for adaptation projects as catalogued by the Climate Funds Update. This histogram shows the growing volume of the adaptation nance, starting from 2003/04 with the operationalisation of the rst multilateral funds for adaptation. The decrease observed in 2013 may depend on an incomplete data collection for this year. Looking at how the
nancing from the multilateral funds is divided among different regional areas, it is possible to observe the clear predominance of sub-saharan Africa and Asian and Pacic regions.

3/4 E volut ion o f th e d i f f er en t th em es discu ssed du rin g each C OP s i n EN B negoti a ti on rep orts
COP 06 The H a gue
COP 1 5 Copenhagen COP 1 3 B a li
COP 1 6 C a nc un

Adaptation funding & equity
COP 1 1 Mont re a l
COP 1 2 Na irob i
COP 1 4 Pozna n
COP 1 7 D urb a n
COP 01 Berlin INC 11 N ew Yo r k
C O P 02 Gen eva
C O P 03 Kyo t o
COP 04 Buenos Aires
COP 05 Bonn
COP 06bis Bonn
COP 07 Ma rra kech
COP 0 8 N e w D e lhi
COP 0 9 Mila n
COP 1 8 D oh a
COP 19 Wa r s aw
Redd + post-Kyoto
Energy + technology transfer
CDM + carbon offsets
Energy + technology transfer Adaptation funding & equity
Land use & forests
GHGs & emission measures Energy + technology transfer Adaptation funding & equity
Energy + technology transfer
Vulnerability + adaptation action
Models and IPCC

Transport sector
Land use & forests Vulnerability + adaptation action Kyoto protocol Social & environmental impacts
Social & environmental impacts
GHGs & emission measures

CDM + carbon offsets Compliance enforcement Compliance enforcement Kyoto protocol
Land use & forests
Land use & forests
Kyoto protocol
Models and IPCC

Kyoto protocol Post-Kyoto and Redd Social & environmental impacts
Models and IPCC
Compliance enforcement Transport sector Redd + post-Kyoto
Vulnerability + adaptation action Compliance enforcement Transport sector
Models and IPCC
Social & environmental impacts Transport sector
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2 20 01 12 2
2 20 01 13 3

Adaptation and equity related issues have always been high on the negotiations agenda. But not always at the same degree. Developed countries responsibility for adverse effects of climate change was a major issue during the early negotiations on the Convention (before 1995). If political compromises will downplay adaptation and focus will be limited to assessing climate change impacts and country vulnerability during the rst COPs, vulnerable countries bargain strategy will manage to include adaptation funding provisions in the Kyoto Protocol (1995). Debates about the mechanisms to ensure this, reached critical levels at Hague
COP (2000), with strong disagreements on the type of fund, its funding modalities and competences. With growing concern among all Parties to meet the main conventions objective (mitigation), vulnerability, impacts and adaptation action and funding debates 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 COPs of adaptation. On the aftermath of several extreme weather events, Montreal (2005) marked the end of the narrative of invulnerability in developed countries, and with it, the controversy on
adaptation vs mitigation was "closed". Discussions moved since Nairobi (2006) toward the operationalisation of funds. with growing evidence on climate change. Since then, and specially after the Copenhagen failure, the the agenda was recongured by to raising issues of concern and debate during the following COPs : the denition of a new post-2012 universal Protocol for reducing emissions, the growing recognition of the social dimensions of climate change impacts, and the progressive enshrinement of the loss and damage approach.
COP 06 The H a gue
COP 1 6 C a nc un
COP 1 0 Buenos Aires COP 0 9 Mila n
COP 1 1 Mont re a l
COP 1 2 Na irob i
COP 1 4 Pozna n
COP 1 7 D urb a n
COP 1 8 D oh a
COP 19 Wa r s aw
C O P 02 Gen eva
C O P 03 Kyo t o
COP 04 Buenos Aires
COP 05 Bonn
COP 06bis Bonn
COP 07 Ma rra kech
Post-Kyoto and Redd
Post-Kyoto and Redd Social & environmental impacts
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2 20 01 12 2
2 20 01 13 3

While both adaptation and mitigation are core elements of the UNFCCC, mitigation has had priority on the agenda from the beginning of the UNFCCC negotiations. Talks started in Berlin (1995) with the aim of reaching an agreement on a binding framework to reduce GHGs emissions, which culminated with the adoption of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (KP) and its exible mechanism. Since then the issue of emission mitigation was less discussed within the UNFCCC arena and adaptation gained visibility. Debate mostly evolved around technical and practical questions regarding the operationalization of the agreement.
Three events bring back mitigation to a certain level of attention: the US refusal to ratify the Protocol (Bonn 20 01) Russias hesitation to enter the KP after US and Australia's withdrawal (New Delhi 2003); and its entering into force following the 55th country ratication (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 reductions became the major issue. In this context, the mechanisms land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), CDM projects, and compliance will raise strong debates. Buenos Aires (2004) and Bali (2007)
COP will see agreement and progressive stabilisation of issues pertaining to technology transfer for fuel emission reductions, CDM and forestry management projects and the constant rise of REDD and post-Kyoto debates. Mitigation is denitely back to the front issues with the expiration of the KP since the need to think in terms of post-Kyoto and a renewed concern on energy and technology transfer. The failure Copenhagen COP failure to adopt binding commitments, and pushing the deadline for a new universal climate to 2015.
COP 06 The H a gue
COP 1 6 C a nc un
COP 1 0 Buenos Aires COP 0 9 Mila n
COP 1 1 Mont re a l
COP 1 2 Na irob i
COP 1 4 Pozna n
COP 1 7 D urb a n
COP 1 8 D oh a
COP 19 Wa r s aw
C O P 02 Gen eva
C O P 03 Kyo t o
COP 04 Buenos Aires
COP 05 Bonn
COP 06bis Bonn
COP 07 Ma rra kech
Post-Kyoto and Redd
Land use & forests Kyoto protocol CDM + carbon offsets Compliance enforcement Kyoto protocol Post-Kyoto and Redd CDM + carbon offsets Land use & forests
Compliance enforcement
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2 20 01 12 2
2 20 01 13 3

The place of vulnerability and adaptation policy as a focus negotiations in the UNFCCC has clearly evolved over the COPs. Whereas it was present but not at the core of negotiations in the early COPs focused on reaching an agreement on a binding framework to reduce GHGs emissions leading to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (KP) and its exible mechanisms, the issue constantly grew from Marrakech (2000) to Buenos Aires (2004). The COPs of adaptation, New Delhi (2002) and Buenos Aires (2004) will enshrine the recognition that vulnerability and adaptation measures are a mainstream issue in the UNFCCC process, leading through Mon-
treal (2005) and Nairobi (2006) to the end of the controversy on adaptation vs New Delhi (2002) and Buenos Aires (2004) will enshrine the recognition that vulnerability and adaptation measures are a mainstream issue in the UNFCCC process, leading through Montreal (2005) and Nairobi (2006) to the end of the controversy on adaptation vs. mitigation. This became evident in the 2007 Balis four pillars including adaptation, alongside with mitigation, technology transfer and nance in a shared vision for long-term cooperative action. Since Poznan, adaptation action falls as a focus of attention and concern. On the one hand, the
Copenhagen failure recongured priorities for the following COPs, focused on the denition of a new post-2012 universal Protocol for reducing emissions. On the other hand, the recent COPs saw the growth of debates on funding, as well as the increasing importance of social justice dimensions of climate change around the loss and damage concept.
COP 06 The H a gue
COP 1 6 C a nc un

COP 1 1 Mont re a l
COP 1 2 Na irob i
COP 1 4 Pozna n
COP 1 7 D urb a n
C O P 02 Gen eva
C O P 03 Kyo t o
COP 04 Buenos Aires
COP 05 Bonn
COP 06bis Bonn
COP 07 Ma rra kech
COP 0 9 Mila n
COP 1 8 D oh a
COP 19 Wa r s aw
Post-Kyoto and Redd
Vulnerability + adaptation action Kyoto protocol Social & environmental impacts CDM + carbon offsets
Kyoto protocol
Post-Kyoto and Redd Vulnerability + adaptation action
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2 20 01 12 2
2 20 01 13 3
20 ye a rs o f n e g o t i ati ons on ada pta t i o n a t UNFCCC CO P s

4/4 E volut ion o f co u n t r y p ar tecipat io n s du rin g each C OP s in ENB negoti a ti on rep orts
The diagram shows the number of intervention in the negotiations of the 21 most active countries of the UNFCCC debate (as reported in the Earth Negotiation Bulletin). The size of the ow is proportional to the number of paragraphs of the ENB reports in which the name of each of the top21 countries is mentioned. The data are calculated COP by COP. The ows are ranked by the number of mentions (the highest ow 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 countries tends to maintain their relative rank throughout the 19 COPs. There are however a few notable exceptions that well see in the next graph.
COP 06 The H a gue COP 0 9 Mila n COP 1 5 Copenhagen COP 19 Wa r s aw COP 1 2 Na irob i COP 1 1 Mont re a l COP 1 3 B a li COP 1 4 Pozna n COP 1 6 C a nc un COP 1 7 D urb a n COP 06bis Bonn
United States China United States
INC 11 N ew Yo r k COP 04 Buenos Aires C O P 03 Kyo t o

United States
COP 05 Bonn
China
C O P 02 Gen eva
COP 07 Ma rra kech
COP 1 8 Doha
China
COP 01 Berlin
China
Europe
Europe Europe
Europe United States Philippines Philippines
Japan Australia Japan Canada
Switzerland
India
Japan
Canada
Australia
Australia
Germany
Saudi Arabia Bolivia

Norway
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia Brazil

South Africa
Brazil
Canada Australia Kuwait

Argentina Germany New Zealand Russian Federation Switzerland Tavalu
Canada
Saudi Arabia
South Africa
India
New Zealand
Norway
New Zealand Russian Federation Switzerland

Tavalu
Brazil
India
Colombia Mexico Kuwait Kuwait Japan
Norway
Mexico Bolivia
Philippines Bolivia
Mexico
Brazil Argentina
Bolivia
Colombia Tavalu New Zealand India Russian Federation Argentina Russian Federation Colombia Bolivia Argentina Switzerland Mexico South Africa Germany Philippines Kuwait Philippines Germany Kuwait
Colombia
Norway South Africa Mexico Bolivia
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2 20 01 12 2
2 20 01 13 3

4/4 E volut ion o f th e r i s i n g co u n t ry part ecipat io n s du rin g each C OPs i n EN B negoti a ti on rep orts
Observing the map it is possible to observe the rise of the Philippines and Bolivia, two countries of the South of the Word who has take more and more of importance in the latest COPs. In particular, Bolivia (who never ranked very very high in the rst 15 COPs) has a dramatic rise in visibility starting from COP16 in Cancun where it takes the lead on the question of loss and damage.
The trajectory of the Philippines is also very interesting. Starting very high in the rst COPs (4th place in New York INC11 and 6th place in Berlin COP1), the Philippines lose visibility in the following COPs, but regains the 4th position in Doha COP18 and Warsaw COP19.
COP 06 The H a gue COP 0 9 Mila n COP 1 5 Copenhagen COP 19 Wa r s aw COP 1 2 Na irob i COP 1 1 Mont re a l COP 1 3 B a li COP 1 4 Pozna n COP 1 6 C a nc un COP 1 7 D urb a n COP 06bis Bonn COP 1 8 Doha
INC 11 N ew Yo r k COP 04 Buenos Aires C O P 03 Kyo t o C O P 02 Gen eva COP 05 Bonn COP 07 Ma rra kech COP 0 8 N e w D e lhi
COP 01 Berlin
Philippines
Philippines
Bolivia
Bolivia
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2 20 01 12 2
2 20 01 13 3

4/4 E volut ion o f p eaki n g co u n tries du rin g each C OP s in ENB n egoti a ti on rep orts
A few countries have punctual pics of visibility in some specic COPS. Mexico scores relatively low for most of the negotiations, but jumps to the 5th position in the COP16 that it hosted in Cancun. Even more interesting is the trajectory of Tuvalu. Starting from the Kyoto COP3, the tiny pacic island has entered and remained in the top20 of the most visible countries of
UNFCCC (which is in itself a remarkable results). But Tuvalu reaches the 13th position in Poznan COP14, the 9th position in Copenhague COP15 and 12th in Cancun COP16. 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).
COP 01 Berlin
Tavalu Argentina
Mexico
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2 20 01 12 2
2 20 01 13 3

4/4 E volut ion o f d ecl i n i n g co u n t ries part ecipat io n s du rin g each C OPs i n EN B negoti a ti on rep orts
Observing the diagram it is possible to observe the dramatic disengagement of the Canada from the climate negotiations. Scoring very high in the rst COPs (starting from Berlin COP1, Canada remains in the top6 until Bali COP13), Canada falls suddenly starting from COP14 Poznam in 2008. It is worth to remember that in 2006 Canada changed its Prime Minister (with Stephen Harper entering into ofce) and that in 2011 Canada left the Kyoto protocol.
A steep decline can be observed also for Germany after COP2 Geneva, but it this declined is explained by the increasing importance of the UE as a unique negotiating group.
COP 01 Berlin
Germany
Canada
Canada
Germany
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2 20 01 12 2
2 20 01 13 3

4/4 E volut ion o f s tab l e pr o t ag on ist s du rin g each C OP s in ENB n egoti a ti on rep orts
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.
COP 06 The H a gue COP 0 9 Mila n COP 1 5 Copenhagen COP 19 Wa r s aw COP 1 2 Na irob i COP 1 1 Mont re a l COP 1 3 B a li COP 1 4 Pozna n COP 1 6 C a nc un COP 1 7 D urb a n COP 06bis Bonn COP 1 8 Doha China
INC 11 N ew Yo r k COP 04 Buenos Aires C O P 03 Kyo t o United States C O P 02 Gen eva COP 05 Bonn COP 07 Ma rra kech COP 0 8 N e w D e lhi
COP 01 Berlin China
United States
Europe
Europe
Australia
Japan
Australia
Japan
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2 20 01 12 2
2 20 01 13 3

Twenty Years of Negotiations On Adaptation at UNFCCC COPs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Twenty Years of Negotiations On Adaptation at UNFCCC COPs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 0 ye a rs o f n e g o t i ati ons on ada pta t i o n a t UNFCCC CO P s

G lo bal issue s discusse d

COP 04 Buenos Aires

COP 06bis B onn

COP 1 0 Buenos Aires

Further discussions on the establishment of an adaptation fund.

2 0 ye a rs o f n e g o t i ati ons on ada pta t i o n a t UNFCCC CO P s

ENB negotiation reports on adaptation

COP 06 The H a gue

COP 06bis Bonn

COP 07 Ma rra kech

COP 1 0 Buenos Aires

Hurricane Sandy hit NY in October. Typhoon Bopha hit Philippines

2 0 ye a rs o f n e g o t i ati ons on ada pta t i o n a t UNFCCC CO P s

COP 06 The H a gue

COP 1 5 Copenhagen COP 1 3 B a li

COP 1 0 Buenos Aires

COP 01 Berlin INC 11 N ew Yo r k

COP 04 Buenos Aires

COP 06bis Bonn

COP 07 Ma rra kech

Adaptation funding & equity

Energy + technology transfer

CDM + carbon offsets

Energy + technology transfer Adaptation funding & equity

Land use & forests

Energy + technology transfer

Vulnerability + adaptation action

Models and IPCC

Social & environmental impacts

GHGs & emission measures

CDM + carbon offsets Compliance enforcement Compliance enforcement Kyoto protocol

Land use & forests

Land use & forests

Models and IPCC

GHGs & emission measures

Models and IPCC

Vulnerability + adaptation action

Compliance enforcement Transport sector Redd + post-Kyoto

Vulnerability + adaptation action Compliance enforcement Transport sector

GHGs & emission measures

Models and IPCC

Social & environmental impacts Transport sector

2 0 ye a rs o f n e g o t i ati ons on ada pta t i o n a t UNFCCC CO P s

COP 06 The H a gue

COP 1 5 Copenhagen COP 1 3 B a li

COP 1 0 Buenos Aires COP 0 9 Mila n

COP 01 Berlin INC 11 N ew Yo r k

COP 04 Buenos Aires

COP 06bis Bonn

COP 07 Ma rra kech

Post-Kyoto and Redd

Adaptation funding & equity

Adaptation funding & equity

Vulnerability + adaptation action

Vulnerability + adaptation action

Social & environmental impacts

Post-Kyoto and Redd Social & environmental impacts

2 0 ye a rs o f n e g o t i ati ons on ada pta t i o n a t UNFCCC CO P s

COP 06 The H a gue

COP 1 5 Copenhagen COP 1 3 B a li

COP 1 0 Buenos Aires COP 0 9 Mila n

COP 01 Berlin INC 11 N ew Yo r k