Research
Paper
November 201889

HISTORY AND POLITICS OF
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION AT THE
UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION
ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Harjeet Singh and Indrajit BoseRESEARCH PAPERS89

HISTORY AND POLITICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
ADAPTATION AT THE UNITED NATIONSFRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
Harjeet Singh and Indrajit Bose*

SOUTH CENTRENOVEMBER 2018

* Harjeet Singh is Global Lead on Climate Change at ActionAid International. Indrajit Bose is SeniorResearch Officer, Climate Change, at the Third World Network (TWN).

SOUTH CENTRE

In August 1995 the South Centre was established as a permanent intergovernmental organization of developing countries. In pursuing its
objectives of promoting South solidarity, South-South cooperation,and coordinated participation by developing countries in international
forums, the South Centre has full intellectual independence. It
prepares, publishes and distributes information, strategic analyses andrecommendations on international economic, social and politicalmatters of concern to the South.
The South Centre enjoys support and cooperation from thegovernments of the countries of the South and is in regular working
contact with the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 andChina. The Centre’s studies and position papers are prepared bydrawing on the technical and intellectual capacities existing within
South governments and institutions and among individuals of theSouth. Through working group sessions and wide consultations, which
involve experts from different parts of the South, and sometimes fromthe North, common problems of the South are studied and experienceand knowledge are shared.

NOTE

Readers are encouraged to quote or reproduce the contents of this Research Paper for theirown use, but are requested to grant due acknowledgement to the South Centre and to send a
copy of the publication in which such quote or reproduction appears to the South Centre.
The views contained in this paper are attributable to the author/s and do not represent theinstitutional views of the South Centre or its Member States. Any mistake or omission inthis study is the sole responsibility of the author/s.
Any comments on this paper or the content of this paper will be highly appreciated. Pleasecontact:
South Centre
Ch. du Champ d’Anier 17
POB 228, 1211 Geneva 19
Switzerland
Tel. (41) 022 791 80 50
Fax (41) 022 798 85 31
south@southcentre.int
www.southcentre.int

Follow the South Centre’s Twitter: South_Centre

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We are deeply thankful to The South Centre for giving us the opportunity to write this paper.
We are grateful to Mr. Martin Khor, former Executive Director of The South Centre, for inspiring
the idea for the paper.
We would also like to acknowledge those who reviewed the paper and sent us their very usefulcomments. In this regard, we would especially like to thank:
Ms. Bernarditas Muller, Senior Negotiator and G77 and China Coordinator on Finance issues
Ms. Doreen Stabinsky, Faculty, Global Environmental Politics, College of the Atlantic
Ms. Meenakshi Raman, Head of Programme, Climate Change, Third World Network
Ms. Sujatha Byravan, Scientist based in India
Mr. Sandeep Chamling Rai, Senior Advisor - Global Climate Adaptation Policy, World Wildlife
Fund
Ms. Mariama Williams, Senior Programme Officer, The South Centre
Mr. Vicente Paolo Yu, Programme Coordinator, The South Centre
Mr. Youba Sokona, Senior Adviser, The South Centre
Mr. Carlos Correa, Executive Director, The South Centre
We would also like to thank Ms. Archana Yadav for copy-editing the paper.

ABSTRACTThis research paper provides a perspective on how climate change adaptation has progressed in themultilateral space, under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC). It describes adaptation and financial institutions under the climate regime and thecurrent scope of their activities. The paper highlights the challenges that lie ahead, particularlyaround financing, for developing countries to adapt to a rapidly warming world and presents
recommendations for the governments to accord higher priority to adaptation.
Le présent rapport de recherche examine les progrès réalisés en matière d'adaptation auxchangements climatiques dans les négociations multilatérales sous l’égide de la Convention-cadre
des Nations Unies sur les changements climatiques (UNFCCC). Il décrit les institutions financières
et les institutions chargées de l’adaptation relevant du régime applicable aux changements
climatiques, ainsi que leurs champs de compétence actuels. Le document met en évidence les défis,notamment en matière de financement, qui se présentent aux pays en développement pours’adapter au rapide réchauffement planétaire et fait des recommandations aux États pour qu’ils
donnent plus d’importance à l’adaptation.
Este Informe de investigación aporta una perspectiva sobre el progreso de la adaptación al cambio
climático en el ámbito multilateral en el contexto de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas
sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC). Se describen las instituciones para la adaptación y las
instituciones financieras en el marco del régimen climático y el ámbito actual de sus actividades.
El Informe destaca asimismo los desafíos que se plantean, en particular, con relación a lafinanciación, para que los países en desarrollo puedan adaptarse a un planeta que se estácalentando rápidamente y se formulan recomendaciones para que los Gobiernos concedan mayor
prioridad a la adaptación.

TABLE OF CONTENTSACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................ 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 3
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 5
I. THE ADAPTATION JOURNEY SO FAR ................................................................................ 9
II. INSTITUTIONAL SETTING FOR ADAPTATION UNDER THE UNFCCC ............................ 16
A. Financial Institutions ................................................................................................ 16
B. Constituted Bodies..................................................................................................... 19
C. Institutional Framework and Coherence on Adaptation ...................................... 22
III. THE JOURNEY HEREON… ............................................................................................ 24
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 28
ANNEX I: TIMELINE OF ADAPTATION-RELATED DECISIONS .............................................. 29
ENDNOTES............................................................................................................................ 46

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1

ACRONYMS
AC
ADP
AF
AOSIS
APA
AR5
AWG-LCA
BAP
CAF
CERs
CGE
CMA
CMP
CO2
COP
CTCN
GCF
GDP
GEF
GI
GST
INC
IPCC
KP
LDCF
LDCs
LEG
LMDCs
LTF
MDB
NAP
NAPA
NATCOMs
NDCs
NWP
ODA
PA
PAWP
SBI
SBSTA
SCCF
SCF
SDGs
SIDS
TEC

Adaptation Committee
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action
Adaptation Fund
Alliance of Small Island States
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement
Fifth Assessment Report
Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action
Bali Action Plan
Cancun Adaptation Framework
Certified Emission Reductions
Consultative Group of Experts
Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris
Agreement
Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto
ProtocolCarbon Dioxide
Conference of the Parties
Climate Technology Centre and Network
Green Climate Fund
Gross Domestic Product
Global Environment Facility
Governing Instrument
Global Stocktake
Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Kyoto Protocol
Least Developed Countries Fund
Least Developed Countries
Least Developed Countries Expert Group
Like Minded Developing Countries
Long-term Climate Finance
Multilateral Development Bank
National Adaptation Plan
National Adaptation Programme of Action
National Communications
Nationally Determined Contributions
Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation toclimate change
Official Development AssistanceParis Agreement
Paris Agreement Work Programme
Subsidiary Body for Implementation
Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice
Special Climate Change Fund
Standing Committee on Finance
Sustainable Development Goals
Small Island Developing States
Technology Executive Committee

2 Research Papers

UN
UNDP
UNEP
UNFCCCWMO

United Nations
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Environment Programme
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
World Meteorological Organization

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper is an attempt to provide a perspective on how discussions on climate change
adaptation have progressed in the multilateral space, under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); describe adaptation institutions under the
climate regime and their current activities; and highlight the challenges that lie ahead fordeveloping countries to adapt to a rapidly warming world.
Climate change adaptation is no longer a choice for developing countries. Focus on
climate change mitigation has not yielded results—global temperature has increased andextreme weather and slow onset events are playing havoc with people’s lives. Developing
counties have little option left but to focus on adapting to climate change, build resilienceand take proactive measures to deal with resulting losses and damages from climate
impacts.
Challenges are multiple. In addition to coping with climate change, developing
countries have to deal with poverty eradication. Science has established limits to climatechange adaptation. Emerging global challenges, such as displacement and migration, needpolicy attention. What options does a country have to ensure the safety of its peoples whoare suffering the consequences of something that they have not historically contributed to?
Climate change adaptation is also about equity and ethics. Multilateral frameworks
have been established, several decisions on adaptation have been adopted, but where do westand today?
Literature suggests that financing for adaptation has remained the most contentious
issue in relation to negotiations on climate change adaptation under the UNFCCC. It is an
irony, especially since the Convention explicitly states that financing adaptation is a legal
obligation of developed countries.
The politics around adaptation also meant that it took long for climate change
adaptation to be given the same status as climate change mitigation. First it was clubbed
with other issues such as technology transfer and capacity building. It was not until 2007
and much prodding by science, that adaptation was treated as an independent pillar thatmerits individual attention. Further negotiations—which were often difficult—ensured that
adaptation is treated on a par with mitigation.
In spite of decisions establishing parity between mitigation and adaptation,
developing countries are having a tough time negotiating the implementing arrangementsof the Paris Agreement, that will bring about the parity in practice. Meanwhile, adaptation
finance remains woefully inadequate, which is a common theme that runs across thefinancial institutions and bodies constituted to work on adaptation.
There is also politics around who is vulnerable and who is eligible to receive
financing; what is climate finance; and the kind of ‘adaptation’ projects that should be
financed.
It is sufficiently clear that developing countries cannot execute adaptation projects if
developed countries are going to contribute finances whenever they feel generous. Systems
to ensure that institutions are financed adequately must be instituted and developed4 Research Papers

countries must get out of the ‘donor’ mindset. This is the climate debt they owe to the poorof the developing world.
The paper presents the following recommendations:
1. It is fundamental to protect the basic rights of people and improve their lives,
especially the poor in developing countries. In a world that is moving towards a 3°C
average increase in global temperature, adaptation must be a priority. Unless we focus
on adaptation, we cannot keep people safe.
2. It is crucial to get the international architecture on adaptation right. Whether an
institution is able to help the affected and safeguard their future should be the overarching
metric to decide whether it is working effectively. Coherence among institutions is vital.
Strong coordination mechanisms must enable integration of adaptation across all relevant
institutions.
3. It is essential to make real and adequate money available, in a sustained andpredictable manner to help developing countries adapt to climate change. Developed
countries should accept a transparent, principle-based allocation of responsibility foradaptation funding, resulting in adequate, new and additional public money to support
adaptation programmes in developing countries. Moreover, it must be recognized that
adaptation has its limits, and additional efforts should be directed to address loss anddamage.
4. Accountability should be ensured for all players so that money reaches the people.
Developed countries must report on the new and additional support they provide to
developing countries and developing countries must ensure that the money is utilized
effectively and for the right target groups.
5. Mainstreaming adaptation can address both long-term and urgent adaptation
measures. However, challenges to such mainstreaming must be recognized and barriers
removed. These challenges include lack of awareness and knowledge of adaptation,
particularly in relevant ministries, leading to the issue being considered in the periphery ofother development issues; involving and coordinating stakeholders across various levels ofgovernance and sectors; and linking local impacts with national-level responses.
6. A high priority, near-term activity is to strengthen the knowledge base with more
observations, more and better data and modeling at local levels to refine understanding ofcurrent impacts and projections of future impacts, and with early insights from the field on
the most effective response. Until then, the only way to support adaptation locally isthrough inclusive and participatory sustainable development practices that pay attention tolarge-scale climate change effects in the region.
7. Adaptation is a local challenge created by global actions. The entire global
community must come together and find solutions. Developed countries also stand to beaffected, but the difference is they have more resources to tackle the impacts of climatechange and therefore higher adaptive capacity. When it comes to solutions, these should be
developed jointly. Knowledge sharing and the spirit of collaboration will provide effective
solutions for all.

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 5

INTRODUCTION
To put it simply, the goal of the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement (PA) is to keep theplanet and people safe from catastrophic climate change. This requires helping people whoare suffering the impacts of climate change, adapting to climate change and urgently
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Since the Convention came into existence in 1992, the focus of developed countries
in the climate change negotiations has largely been on mitigation and to get developing
countries to undertake ambitious mitigation targets, without providing them adequate
finance, technology and capacity-building support. One of the consistent struggles fordeveloping countries has been to get meaningful support for adaptation.
The results of mitigation inaction of developed countries are there for the world tosee. According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the global mean
temperature in 2017 was about 1.1°C above pre-industrial temperatures 1 , and theatmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have reached 410 parts per million2.
Extreme weather events such as storms and floods appear to have become the norm, andslow onset events like sea level rise and glacial retreat threaten ecosystems—together,
these have ravaged people’s lives and livelihood, putting their present and future at agreater risk. Hurricanes over the North Atlantic, monsoon floods in the Indian subcontinentand continued severe drought in east Africa made 2017 “the most expensive year on record
for severe weather and climate events”, according to the WMO3. The hurricanes eroded
decades of development gains in small islands in the Caribbean such as Dominica4. Last
year was also one of the three warmest years on record, even though it was not influenced
by an El Niño event (see Figure 1: The State of Climate in 2017). The beginning of 2018has been no different, with the Arctic experiencing high temperatures, bitter cold in thenorthern hemisphere, heat waves in Australia and Argentina, continued drought in Kenya
and Somalia, and acute water shortages in Cape Town5.

Figure 1: The State of Climate in 2017
(Source: https://bit.ly/2yB9exn)

6 Research Papers

Climate impacts have not spared the developed world either. But countries withmeans are naturally more resilient and capable of helping their people than the countries
that have to deal with large-scale poverty and deprivation, besides climate change impacts.
Under such circumstances, the first step for poorer countries is to meet the immediateneeds of climate victims and then ensure the safety of its people from future impacts byfocusing on climate change adaptation. But climate impacts and consequently the need tofocus on adaptation, is only going to increase.
Climate change also impacts food production adversely, among other sectors. The
vulnerability of developing countries dependent on agriculture increases when climatechange-induced events destroy food crops. Developing countries are already struggling toaddress the huge challenges of poverty, hunger, nutrition and health. In a world of extreme
weather and slow onset climatic events, these challenges become even greater. It is norocket science to infer that areas with poor people are also the most vulnerable to theeffects of climate change.
Under the first round of climate actions proposed by countries under the Paris
Agreement, called nationally determined contributions (NDCs), the actions will lead to atleast 3°C of warming6. This begs the question that when the impacts of a 1.1°C increase
are playing havoc with people’s lives, how will they cope if temperature rises by 3°C (seeFigure 2: Change in average surface temperature)?

Figure 2: Multi-Model Projection of Change in average surface temperature in 2081-2100, relative
to 1986-2005 levels(Source: IPCC AR5, Working Group 1 SPM: https://bit.ly/1zekdFi)

According to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), “responding to climate-related risks involves decision making in achanging world, with continuing uncertainty about the severity and timing of climatechange impacts and with limits to the effectiveness of adaptation”. The AR5 also notes thatmajor future impacts are expected on water availability and supply, food security andagriculture; poverty reduction will become even more difficult; and new poverty traps willbe created. The impacts are expected to increase poverty in most developing countries7.
Sea-level rise, glacial melt, salt-water intrusion in farmlands, desertification, higher
intensity cyclones, floods, decrease in the number of rainy days, and ocean acidification
are only a few of the impacts that the world has to grapple with, and these impacts will
intensify in the future.
Even in a scenario where the world stopped emitting all greenhouse gases today,History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 7“global warming and climate change will continue to affect future generations”8. While theworld must strive to meet the Paris Agreement target of holding the “increase in the global
average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts tolimit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels9”, it is fundamental tourgently invest more resources in adaptation. Developing countries do not have a choicehere. Adaptation requires means—finance, technology and capacity building—and it isgoing to be expensive. “The cost of adapting to climate change in developing countries
could rise to between $280 and $500 billion per year by 2050, a figure that is four to fivetimes greater than previous estimates,” according to the 2016 Adaptation Finance Gap
Report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)10.
And even in the improbable scenario that there is adequate financing, there are limits
to climate change adaptation. For some, such as those in the islands, addressing theimpacts of climate change will require them to permanently leave their homes and property
for safer avenues. The world must come to grips with displacement and forced migration—
new global challenges, which pose more questions than provide solutions at this stage. It isa great injustice that the people who have done generally very little to cause the problem
are disproportionately getting affected by climate impacts11.
Climate impacts are exacerbating inequalities that already exist between and withincountries. Thus, climate change adaptation is also about equity. Developed countries haveattained their current level of development through carbon-intensive growth. One of theobjectives of the UNFCCC was to transition this high-carbon growth to low-carbon,
sustainable growth. At the same time, it recognized both the right of developing countries
to grow sustainably as well as their lack of means to do so. The gap in the means necessary
to achieve sustainable, low-carbon development was supposed to have been filled bydeveloped countries, but this has not happened. Now, in the multilateral space, whendeveloping countries demand to grow, it is often misinterpreted as the right to pollute. Thisview must change.
For developing countries undertaking climate change adaptation, equity demands
that their adaptation actions are recognized as their efforts in tackling climate change andthat they receive support for those efforts. However, as the 2016 Adaptation Finance Gap
Report points out, developing countries face an adaptation finance deficit and it is likely togrow substantially unless significant new and additional finance is secured for adaptation.
The mitigation efforts of developed countries fall far short of the necessary action in
the pre-2020 period. If this period serves as an example, there is little hope that thedeveloped countries will increase their targets substantially in the post-2020 world when
the Paris Agreement becomes operational. The announcement made in June 2017 by thehistorically biggest polluter, the United States, of its intention to withdraw from the Paris
Agreement serves as a warning. With such a bleak picture in relation to emissions
reduction, adaptation must receive adequate attention and resources, and be treated on apar with mitigation. To ensure this, it would be instructive to cast a glance at how theadaptation debate has shaped so far, which this paper attempts.
The structure of this paper is as follows:
Section I is an introduction to the journey of adaptation, which traces the history ofadaptation politics under the UNFCCC negotiations, since its first Conference of theParties (COP). The decisions taken in four COPs—Marrakech, Bali, Cancun and Paris—8 Research Papers

considered landmark for adaptation, have also been elaborated. (Listed in an annex is also
a timeline of the adaptation-related decisions from COP 1 to COP 22, with highlights of
the adaptation provisions in the decisions.)
Section II provides a snapshot of the institutional set up on adaptation along with theconstituted bodies. Under the financing institutions, the status of the Adaptation Fund,
Least Developed Countries Fund, Special Climate Change Fund and Green Climate Fundhave been presented. Next, the functioning and status of constituted bodies, the Least
Developed Countries Expert Group and the Adaptation Committee, have been presented.
There is also a brief mention of the Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability
and adaptation to climate change.
Section III delves deeper into some of the more political areas such as vulnerability,
climate finance, adaptation-development debate and proposes suggestions on how some ofthese should be tackled.
Conclusions and recommendations are then presented.

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 9

I. THE ADAPTATION JOURNEY SO FARHistorically, adaptation has largely been a political fight, primarily due to its financing.
When multilateral negotiations on climate change began, the need to adapt anddeveloped countries’ obligation to provide developing countries the financial andtechnological means for this were recognized early on. At every COP this was reiterated.
Report after report of the IPCC brought out the urgency of adaptation. Yet, most
multilateral effort has gone in debating the need to adapt and ways to adapt, and very littlein actually adapting because developed countries are unwilling to provide the money toexecute adaptation plans. Because of this unwillingness, they are reluctant to engage in theadaptation debate.
This is evident in the slow progress of the debate over the decades.
Adaptation is nearly a half-a-century-old idea. It began in the 1970s and early 1980s,
when the Club of Rome, an organisation of individuals who share concerns over the futureof humanity 12 , raised questions about the ecological limits to human development andgrowth, options to respond to climate change and whether systems would be able to adapt
automatically13. In the late 1980s, through the United Nations Environment Programme
Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases and the IPCC, questions around climate change
impacts and adaptation started being asked14.
In the next decade, an intergovernmental negotiating committee (INC) and the
UNFCCC began by asking questions on whether mitigation was more important thanadaptation and the optimal balance between the two to respond to climate change15. The
conversation turned around policy support for adaptation, vulnerability and the extent ofadaptation needed. Links between adaptation and development also began to be explored16.
Funding becomes obligatory for developed countries
When the Convention was signed in 1992, adaptation was an essential parameter in
its ultimate objective, as defined in its Article 2. The objective of the Convention is tostabilize greenhouse gases in the atmosphere within a timeframe sufficient to “allow
ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is notthreatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner”17.
The Convention also provided for adaptation in its key articles. The most important
provision was mandating developed countries to assist developing countries in meeting the“costs of adaptation” 18 . It is clear that financing adaptation is a legal obligation ofdeveloped countries under Article 4.4 of the Convention. The Article states: “Thedeveloped country Parties…shall also assist the developing country Parties that are
particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in meeting costs ofadaptation to those adverse effects.” This implies “grant-based and full cost funding”19. In
fact, everything that mentions adaptation in the Convention is related to financing20.
The Convention also states that policies and measures to tackle climate change
should take into account adaptation, among other things 21 . Provisions in relation tocountries formulating, implementing and updating plans and programmes on adaptation
were also put in place22.

10 Research Papers

During the first Conference of the Parties (COP 1) in 1995, countries identified threestages of adaptation action. The first stage was to focus on short-term activities, such as
conducting impact and vulnerability studies and identifying policy options. Second andthird stages were for medium- and long-term activities. Stage two was to focus on
preparation for adaptation, including capacity-building initiatives, and Stage three was toprovide efforts on implementation of concrete adaptation projects23.
Yet between 1995 and COP 7 in 2001, instead of treating adaptation as anindependent area of study, the conversation remained mostly about provision ofenvironmentally sound technologies for adaptation. The need for financing for adaptation,
though, was underscored through various language formulations in the decisions the COPs
adopted (see Annex I for Timeline of Adaptation decisions). According to a seniornegotiator, the language of decisions has always been “addressing climate change” mainly
through mitigation, and “its adverse effects” through adaptation24.
Science catalyzes action: first concrete steps on adaptation
In the decade starting in 2000, nearly 10 years after the Convention, talks on creating
institutions dedicated to adaptation began. This shift in focus was because of the Third
Assessment Report of the IPCC released in 2001. The report brought out clear evidence on“changing weather patterns and the need for adaptation actions along with mitigation” andprovided the impetus for substantive work on adaptation under the Convention 25 . The
discussions veered from the need to adapt, to how to adapt26.
COP 7 held in Marrakech, Morocco, in 2001 is considered to be the first landmark in
adaptation. It adopted the Marrakech Accords, which comprised important decisions on
adaptation. At this COP, countries established a work programme for the Least Developed
Countries (LDCs) to address their specific and immediate needs 27 . This entailed
developing National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) for the LDCs andforming an LDC Expert Group (LEG). Specific funds—the Special Climate Change Fund
(SCCF) and the LDC Fund (LDCF)—were established. The LDCF was to fund the
preparation and implementation of NAPAs.
COP 7 also established an Adaptation Fund, under the Kyoto Protocol, to financeadaptation projects in developing countries. In addition to these, several decisions focusedon vulnerability and adaptation assessments, capacity building for implementation ofadaptation measures, and framework for meaningful and effective actions on transfer ofenvironmentally sound technologies and knowhow to developing countries were adopted.
Once again, the need for financing for adaptation was stressed (see Annex 1 for details).
Between COP 7 in 2001 and COP 13 in 2007 in Bali, the focus of the decisions
expanded to financing for adaptation, transparency provisions, operational aspects ofadaptation, technology transfer for adaptation, capacity building of developing countries
for adaptation, strengthening institutions, detailing their work on adaptation and exchange
of information and lessons learned.

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 11

At COP 10 in 2004, countries
agreed on the Buenos Aires
programme of work on adaptation andresponse measures28. The programme
was to develop methodologies to deal
with adverse effects of climatechange,reportingvulnerability
assessment and adaptation measuresin countries’ National Communicationand collecting and disseminating
information among Parties29.
In 2005 at COP 11, a work
program on impacts, vulnerability andadaptation was created, which got
renamed as the Nairobi Work
Programme on Impacts, Vulnerability
and Adaptation (NWP) in 200630. The
NWP was created to help developing
countries better understand andmeasurevulnerability
andadaptation 31 , and has since grown tobecome a knowledge hub foradaptation32.
To get anything concrete on
adaptation
took
long
becausediscussing funding for adaptation
touched “too much on the highly
politicized early debate surrounding
accountability”, where, for developed
countries, discussing adaptation meant
accepting responsibility for causing
climate change33. Also, after the entry
into force of the UNFCCC in 1994,
the next few years were consumed bynegotiations on the Kyoto Protocol,
focused squarely on mitigation34.
Until COP 13, therefore, only
three institutions on adaptation werecreated and the NWP was launched.
The focus on adaptation remained
oblique; discussions were almost
always linked to some other issue,
suchascapacity-buildingortechnology transfer or exchanging
lessons learned.

Loss and Damage
The insufficient investment in mitigationand inadequate as well as delayed resources
for adaptation have led to a situation wherepoor people and vulnerable ecosystems are
already facing the brunt of increasingclimate impacts. These impacts are evenoverwhelming the capacity of countries
such as the Philippines and Pacific Island
nations who had acquired skills andknowledge to deal with disasters. Poorer
countries, which have least resources areworse off.
The Alliance of Small Island States(AOSIS) has been raising the issue ofadverse effects of climate change since1991. However, the term “loss and damage”
was recognized only at COP 13 under theBali Action Plan. It refers to the limits ofadaptation and impacts that could not be
adapted to.
It was at COP 16 in Cancun that a work
programme was agreed upon which, after afierce fight in 2012 and 2013, led to theestablishment of the Warsaw International
Mechanism on Loss and Damage at COP
19 but under the Cancun Adaptation
Framework.
After a bitter fight in 2015, the Paris
Agreement recognized it as an issue
separate from adaptation as Article 8.
The Mechanism, operationalized by an
Executive Committee, has now been in
existence for five years. While thecoordination and knowledge generation
functions of the Mechanism saw some
progress, it is the “action and support”
function, which includes provision offinance, technology and capacity buildingthat has hardly made any headway due tothe lack of support from developed
countries.

12 Research Papers

Turning point: adaptation gets independent recognition
COP 13 in Bali in 2007 was a turning point. Demands grew to recognize adaptation
as a separate pillar that needed specific attention. One of the reasons for this was the
publication of the Fourth Assessment Report by the IPCC, which highlighted that “moreextensive adaptation than earlier was required to reduce the future vulnerability as a resultof the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere due to past emissions”35.
At COP 13, thus, enhanced action on adaptation was established as a separate andindependent pillar under the Bali Action Plan. International cooperation on adaptation was
stressed. Technology development and transfer, and enhanced financial support foradaptation continued to be emphasized. Adaptation discussions also drew linkages withrisk management and risk reduction strategies. COP 13 was also responsible for expanding
governance activities in relation to adaptation36.
In the next three years, between COP 13 and COP 16, the focus was largely on
financing adaptation and the operational aspects of the institutions that were created. COP
16 in 2010 in Cancun, Mexico considered another landmark for adaptation, the Cancun
Adaptation Framework (CAF), which accorded adaptation the same priority as mitigation.
The framework mandated countries, in accordance with their common but differentiatedresponsibilities and respective capabilities, to undertake: planning and prioritizing ofadaptation actions; impact and vulnerability assessments; strengthening institutional
capacities and enabling environments for adaptation; building resilience of socio-economicand ecological systems; enhancing climate change related disaster risk reduction strategies;
measures to understand climate-induced displacement and migration; research aroundtransfer of technologies; strengthening data, information and knowledge systems.
After NAPAs that dealt with immediate challenges, the need for the LDCs toundertake medium- and long-term adaptation planning was recognized. Countries, thus,
agreed on having National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) for the LDCs in COP 1637. A year
later, in COP 17 in Durban, South Africa, the COP invited other developing countries toalso prepare NAPs.
Under the CAF, countries also adopted a Technology Mechanism comprising a
Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and a Climate Technology Centre and Network(CTCN) with the objective of accelerating and enhancing climate technology development
and transfer. The TEC is the policy arm of the Mechanism, and it “analyses issues andprovides policy recommendations”, while the CTCN is meant to be the implementationbody of the Technology Mechanism38.
Additionally, an Adaptation Committee was established to promote implementationof enhanced action on adaptation in a coherent manner. New and additional financing foradaptation was stressed on and it was decided that a significant share of the multilateralfunding for adaptation would flow through the Green Climate Fund (GCF), a new
institution, which COP 16 decided to establish.
Then, in the period between COP 16 in 2010 and COP 21 in 2015, the focus waslargely on the institutions and their mandates, with calls for coherence between institutions,
allocation of resources to adaptation, preparations for a new global compact (which
resulted in the Paris Agreement in 2015), and how adaptation would be reflected in thiscompact.

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 13

Around the time, in 2014, the new kid on the block was intended nationallydetermined contributions—vehicles for countries to communicate their climate actionplans to the world under the new global compact. Developed countries’ efforts weredirected at putting aside adaptation and focusing only on mitigation along the lines of the
mitigation-centric Kyoto Protocol. This was among the biggest political fights leading up
to COP 21, as providing parity to adaptation proved Herculean for developing countries.
Attempt to downsize adaptation thwarted at Paris
The atmosphere in the run up to and at COP 21 in Paris, France was as if adapting toclimate change was a voluntary activity that did not need the same attention as mitigation.
However, developing countries stood their ground and the Paris Agreement, throughDecision 1/CP.21, further cemented the parity between mitigation and adaptation, throughseveral articles, especially Article 3, besides having Article 7 dedicated to adaptation (seeAnnex I for details).
Negotiations over Article 3 of the Paris Agreement, which essentially provided theAgreement its comprehensiveness, were especially contentious and symbolized the “battle
over the nature of the agreement to ensure that the NDCs are not viewed only as being
mitigation-centric”39.
Article 3, as adopted, states, “As nationally determined contributions to the global
response to climate change, all Parties are to undertake and communicate ambitious efforts
as defined in Articles 4, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 13 with the view to achieving the purpose of thisAgreement as set out in Article 2. The efforts of all Parties will represent a progression
over time, while recognizing the need to support developing country Parties for theeffective implementation of this Agreement.”(Article 4 refers to the element of ‘mitigation’, Article 7 to ‘adaptation’, Article 9 to‘finance’, Article 10 to ‘technology development and transfer’, Article 11 to ‘capacitybuilding’ and Article 13 to a ‘transparency framework for action and support’.)
The Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC), a sub-group under the Group of 77
and China, was the major proponent of such an approach, and their proposal was to makesure that contributions of Parties are viewed in a comprehensive manner, reflecting therespective obligations they have under the provisions of the Convention, and not to confine
the contributions to mitigation as desired by the developed countries40.
In relation to adaptation, in sub-paragraph 1 of Article 7 of the Paris Agreement,
Parties agreed to “establish the global goal on adaptation of enhancing adaptive capacity,strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change, with a view tocontributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response in
the context of the temperature goal referred to in Article 2”.
Developing countries had been pushing for a long-term goal or vision on adaptation
to ensure parity with mitigation and to avoid having only a mitigation centric-goal linked
to the temperature goal. This goal, initially formulated by the African Group, also links theadaptation response to the temperature goal.
In relation to the global goal on adaptation, developing countries during the14 Research Papers

negotiations had proposed “an assessment of the adequacy of support” received fromdeveloped countries to developing countries as well as the “recognition of increased
adaptation needs and associated costs in the light of mitigation efforts…” 41 However, what
found its way in the adaptation section (in sub-paragraph 14 of Article 7) is the reference tothe global stocktake (in Article 14), which states that the stocktake “shall” “review theadequacy and effectiveness of adaptation and support provided for adaptation” as well as“review the overall progress made in achieving the global goal on adaptation…”
Developing countries also wanted to ensure that the adaptation efforts they were
undertaking, with or without international support, should be recognized as theircontribution to climate action42. This found expression in sub-paragraph 3 of Article 7,
which stated that “the adaptation efforts of developing country Parties shall berecognised…”, with the modalities to be developed for such recognition.
Current challenges: retaining parity and getting finance
After COP 21, however, progress on adaptation in the negotiations has remained achallenge, primarily at two levels: retaining the parity accorded to adaptation with
mitigation in the Paris Agreement, and mobilizing financial support for adaptation.
The Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA), a body created to work on theimplementation arrangements of the Paris Agreement Work Programme (PAWP), iscurrently engaged in designing modalities, procedures and guidelines on NDCs as well as
in relation to the adaptation communications.
Under the agenda on NDC guidelines, developed countries are of the view that countries
should discuss only mitigation guidelines and not guidelines related to adaptation, finance,technology or capacity building. Developing countries, especially the LMDCs, refer toArticle 3 of the Paris Agreement to reiterate the comprehensiveness of the Agreement, butthere is a concerted attempt to restrict the scope of discussions on NDCs to mitigation.
Developed countries usually say that adaptation guidance is being discussed under theagenda item on adaptation, but this argument needs to be tested for accuracy. Adaptation
communication has three potential vehicles, in other words, adaptation actions of countries
could be communicated through national communications, national adaptation plans and/or
adaptation as a component of NDCs, as envisaged in Article 7.11 of the Paris Agreement.
In the discussions under the adaptation guidance, developed countries do not appear keen
to discuss adaptation as a component of NDCs, nor do they want to discuss guidance forfinance, technology development and transfer, and capacity building. The issues being
discussed under technology and capacity building streams are general institutional issues
that do not touch upon the individual undertakings of developed countries, primarily thefinancial support provided by them.
Currently, the multilateral climate change negotiations are focused on the implementation
arrangements of the Paris Agreement. These arrangements are to be concluded by
December 2018. It does not help that developed countries are interpreting theunderstanding reached in Paris to suit their convenience.
As discussed in the beginning of this section, the Convention places the obligation offinancial support for adaptation on developed countries. In the Paris Agreement, which ismeant to enhance “the implementation of the Convention” 43 , this obligation continues.

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 15

According to Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement, “Developed country Parties shall provide
financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation andadaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.”
Financial issues under the negotiations are heavily contested. Developed countries areresisting providing ex-ante information on public financial resources, mandated under
Article 9.5 of the Paris Agreement. Such information is important for the sake ofpredictability so that developing countries can decide their policies accordingly.
Information on, and provision of, means of implementation will enable developing
countries to put in place ambitious mitigation goals. But without such information, theadaptation gap as well as the support gap is only likely to widen.
Then, developed countries are also not interested in discussing the new collective
quantified goal on finance mandated under the Paris Agreement and are suggesting thatdeveloping countries will also have to contribute to the goal. This is expressly against
Article 9.1 of the Paris Agreement.
Worse, developed countries have tried to move away from the developed-developing
country classification under the Paris Agreement, and introduce income-based
categorizations for access to funds, which goes against the spirit of the Convention and its
Paris Agreement.
Such attempts to block finance and unwillingness to engage in talks on climate change
adaptation will only make the completion of the implementation arrangements by the endof 2018 more difficult, even impossible. So far only governance issues related toadaptation have assumed importance, but the road to getting financing for adaptation
remains an uphill task for developing countries.
This constrains the institutions created so far to facilitate adaptation in many ways. The
next section explains, in a nutshell, the institutions involved in adaptation under the
UNFCCC and the challenges they face.

16 Research Papers

II. INSTITUTIONAL SETTING FOR ADAPTATION UNDER THE UNFCCC
This section maps the institutional setting dedicated to climate change adaptation that wasestablished under the UNFCCC, and is sub-divided into financial and constituted bodies.
Under financial institutions, the Adaptation Fund (AF), Least Developed Countries Fund(LDCF), Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and Green Climate Fund (GCF) arecovered. Under the constituted bodies, the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG)
and the Adaptation Committee (AC) are covered.
It should be noted that an in-depth review of the institutional setting is outside thescope of this paper, but the following information should be relevant to provide an
overview of the areas the institutions and the constituted bodies are working on.
A consistent theme that runs across the working of these institutions and constituted
bodies is the lack of adequate, predictable and sustained financial support for adaptation.
As a result, the functioning and the scaling up of their work are likely to be hugely
impacted. Leaving funding to when the contributors decide to be generous enough to put inresources will make the financial institutions unstable. At the end of the day, these
institutions are meant to facilitate adaptation action on the ground.

A. Financial Institutions
A.1 Adaptation Fund (AF)The AF resulted out of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) and was agreed to in 2001 as part of the
Marrakech Accords. The AF operates under the authority and guidance of the Conferenceof the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the KP (CMP).
The AF was innovative on two counts: one, it financed the full cost of adaptation
projects, and two, it gave developing countries the option of “direct access” to the funds, a
departure from traditional structures of climate financing which follow the model ofmultilateral development banks (MDBs) and United Nations (UN) agencies managing
projects44. This is one of the primary reasons developing countries feel extremely close to
the AF and want its continuation under the Paris Agreement.
The AF was essentially funded through a share of proceeds—2 per cent of revenue
from the certified emission reductions (CERs) generated through the Kyoto Protocol’s
Clean Development Mechanism. These certified emission reductions, bought and sold in
the emissions trading markets, were generated by mitigation activities undertaken indeveloping countries. In other words, developing countries themselves funded theirprojects through the AF.
This self-funding aspect of the Fund is important to bear in mind. It is because of this
aspect that developing countries were able to negotiate a “direct access modality” andfinancing for concrete adaptation projects in an AF Board that was composed of moredeveloping countries than developed countries. In this sense, the AF is a solidarity fundamong developing countries. But since the crash of the market for CERs, the AF has been
dependent, primarily on voluntary financing.

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 17

The amount of resources with the Fund, as of 23 July 2018, was USD 407.03
million45. The future of the AF is at stake in the absence of sustainability, adequacy andpredictability of funding46.
The future of the AF under the Paris Agreement regime is being negotiated under the
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA) at present. Discussions are fraught
with political and legal battles over operating modalities, when should the AF begin toserve the Paris Agreement and what should be the sources of funding, even though at COP
23 in 2017, through decision 1/CP.23, countries decided that the AF “shall” serve the Paris
Agreement 47 . The APA is expected to conclude work on addressing governance andinstitutional arrangements, safeguards and operating modalities for the AF to serve the PA
in 2018.
A.2 Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF)
The LDCF was created as part of the Marrakech Accords at COP 7 in 2001, with voluntary
contributions from developed countries, which were channelled through the Global
Environment Facility (GEF), an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of theConvention. The LDCF became operational in 2002 and is the only fund tasked withfinancing the preparation and implementation of National Adaptation Programmes of
Action (NAPAs)48. As of July 2018, the LDCF had USD 625.51 million49.
Some of the challenges facing the LDCF are insufficient and uncertain funding; aconvoluted management structure, which results in unnecessary delays in funding,hindering the implementation of NAPAs; inadequate capacity of implementing
stakeholders; and just the fact that the presence of a plan (a NAPA) is no guarantee that themeasures planned would be implemented, a study found50.
A.3 Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF)
Like the LDCF, the SCCF was established by COP 7 in Marrakech in 2001. While the
SCCF complements the LDCF, the SCCF is open to all “vulnerable developing countries”
according to the GEF website 51. Also, while adaptation is its priority, the SCCF funds
other areas such as technology transfer through separate financing windows. As of July
2018, the SCCF had USD 114.75 million52.
A.4 Green Climate Fund (GCF)
COP 16 in Cancun decided to establish the GCF, besides taking other crucial decisions on
finance. At the COP, a global goal on finance was set, where it was agreed that “developed
country Parties commit…to a goal of mobilizing jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020to address the needs of developing countries”.53 In this context, the GCF was “intended tobe the main fund for global climate change finance”.54
It was decided that “a significant share of new multilateral funding for adaptation
should flow through the GCF”.55 Parties also agreed to the establishment of the GCF “as an
operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of the Convention…” which functions under
the guidance of the UNFCCC COP.56
The GCF was launched in 2011 at COP17 in Durban, 57 with the adoption of theGoverning Instrument (GI) of the Fund. According to the GI, the purpose of the Fund is to18 Research Papers“make a significant and ambitious contribution” to the global efforts in combating climatechange58.
The GI also lays down that the Fund will seek a balance between funding foradaptation and mitigation, “while promoting environmental, social, economic anddevelopment co-benefits and taking a gender-sensitive approach.”
In relation to support for adaptation, the GCF provides funding to increase resiliencein the areas of heath, food and water security; livelihoods of people and communities;
ecosystems and ecosystem services; and infrastructure and the built environment.
In allocating adaptation resources, the GCF Board decided that there would be afloor of 50 per cent of the adaptation allocation for particularly vulnerable countries,
including LDCs, Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and African States59.
The GCF also has a Readiness Support Programme, which provides up to USD 3
million per country for the formulation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and/or otheradaptation planning processes60. The decision to support NAPs under readiness came after
much push by developing country Board members in the GCF. The developed country
Board members were of the view that the allocation under the readiness programme of the
GCF was sufficient and that nothing more was needed to be done specifically for NAPs61.
How much money does the GCF have?
In the initial resource mobilization phase of the GCF (2015-2018), USD 10.3 billion
was pledged to the Fund, mainly by developed countries62. Of this, USD 10.2 billion was
signed in the form of ‘contribution agreements’ between the governments and the GCF.
However, this does not mean that the GCF has USD 10.2 billion in its account at present,or that this much money will be realised. One may ask why is this the case.
Take the example of the United States’ contribution to the GCF, which states merely
an intention to pay USD 3 billion. So far, the US has paid USD 1 billion to the GCF and it
is not likely to contribute more, given the announcement by US President Donald Trumpthat his country is pulling out of the Paris Agreement and will not put any more resources
into the GCF. This puts in jeopardy the realization of the USD 10.2 billion of the signed
contributions.
Exchange rate fluctuations can further shrink the fund—to the tune of nearly USD 1
billion. According to the GCF Secretariat, as reported in the 20th meeting of the GCF
Board in July 2018, the initial resource mobilization period would yield only USD 7.2
billion by the end of the year as opposed to USD 10.2 billion in signed contributions bycountries63.
The Board has also been discussing the process for the first formal replenishment of
resources for the GCF. But the process is mired in controversy as the US does not want it
to be based on the needs of developing countries64.
Politics of funding projects
So far, the GCF has approved USD 3.7 billion in funding for 76 projects65. On athematic basis, the portfolio is split 46 per cent for mitigation, 32 per cent for adaptation,

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 19

and 22 per cent for crosscutting projects (involving both mitigation and adaptation) 66 .
However, four projects, all related to adaptation, faced objections from the developed
country board members. Of the four projects, the Board did not approve three proposals
and one project was withdrawn after it was presented for the Board’s consideration.
The projects that were not approved included an Ethiopian project titled ‘Responding
to the increasing risk of drought: building gender-responsive resilience of the mostvulnerable communities’; a Paraguayan project on ‘Poverty, Reforestation, Energy andClimate Change’; and an Argentinian project on ‘Climate Action for Rural Development:
community-based adaptation and mitigation’. A project from Bangladesh, titled‘Enhancing Women and Girls’ Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change’, was withdrawn.
Developed country Board members objected that the projects from Ethiopia and
Bangladesh were development projects and not adaptation projects. This divide overwhether a project is an adaptation or a development project has led to a series of
discussions in the GCF Board, but without any outcome so far.
On the projects from Paraguay and Argentina, they raised questions on the level ofconcessionality sought from these “middle-income countries”. This is a departure fromagreed principles and decisions that state that all developing countries are eligible toreceive financing from the GCF and that there is no scope to differentiate developing
countries based on their income status.

B. Constituted Bodies
B.1 Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG)
The LEG was established as part of the Marrakech Accords in 2001 to “support LDCs inaddressing the adverse impacts of climate change”67. Since then, the LEG has provided
technical guidance and advice to LDCs on the preparation and implementation of their
NAPAs.

Status update on NAPs and NAPAs
At its 31st meeting, held in Bonn, Germany, from 7-10 March 2017, the LEG provided astatus update on NAPs and NAPAs. On progress made in relation to support provided for
NAPs, the GEF reported that as of 9 March 2017, five project proposals, amounting to
USD 16.5 million and related to the process of formulating and implementing NAPs, hadbeen approved for funding from the LDCF 68 . Three more project proposals had beentechnically cleared and were awaiting new funding contributions to the LDCF69. According
to the GCF Secretariat, as of 30 April 2018, the Secretariat had approved 12 NAP
proposals (from Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Liberia, Nepal, Niger, Pakistan, andUruguay), and had received NAP proposals from 37 additional countries, namely: Albania,
Armenia, Benin, Bhutan, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Cote d’Ivoire, Commonwealth ofDominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras,
Iraq, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mongolia, Montenegro,
Myanmar, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Serbia, Seychelles, South Sudan, Sudan,
Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Uganda, Uruguay, Uzbekistan and Zimbabwe70.

20 Research Papers

For NAPAs, the GEF reported that as of 9 March 2017, a total of 248 NAPA
implementation projects had been approved by the GEF Council for funding from the
LDCF since its establishment in 2001. In addition, 20 NAPA implementation project
proposals submitted by the LDCs, accounting for a total of USD 126.3 million, had beentechnically cleared by the GEF secretariat and were awaiting the availability of resourcesfrom the LDCF71. Except for Equatorial Guinea and South Sudan, all the LDCs that hadcompleted the preparation of their NAPAs, had at least one NAPA implementation projectapproved for funding under the LDCF since the inception of NAPAs in 2001. The funding
ceiling for each LDC is currently at USD 40 million, in accordance with the principle ofequitable access.

B.2 Adaptation Committee (AC)The AC was established as part of the Cancun Adaptation Framework to promote “theimplementation of enhanced action on adaptation in a coherent manner under theConvention”72.
The body also received specific mandates from COP21 in Paris to help implement
the Paris Agreement. The mandate includes developing modalities, jointly with the LEG,
to recognize adaptation efforts of developing countries; reviewing the work of adaptationrelated institutional arrangements and considering methodologies for assessing adaptationneeds; and jointly with the LEG and the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF), to develop
methodologies to facilitate the mobilization of support for adaptation and review adequacyand effectiveness of adaptation and support for the Global Stocktake73.
In its report to COP 23, the AC admitted that the development of modalities andmethodologies was challenging due to the difficulty of distinguishing between the two and“a lack of clarity around the scale at which modalities and methodologies would beapplied.74”
On the modalities to recognize the adaptation efforts, it recommended, among otherthings, that the UNFCCC Secretariat, under the guidance of the AC and the LEG, prepare asynthesis report on the adaptation efforts of developing countries presented in theadaptation communications, NAPs, national communications, NDCs, reports prepared
under the Transparency Framework of the PA, as well as high-level events on adaptation75.
On facilitating the mobilization of support for adaptation, the AC recommended thatdeveloping countries enhance their enabling environments and policy frameworks; theyassess and prioritize their adaptation needs; use GCF and GEF resources to strengthen
institutional capacities; and requested Parties to report on support provided and received76.
On the methodologies for reviewing the adequacy and effectiveness of adaptationand support, the recommendations called for noting the constraints in developing suchmethodologies because of “differences in national circumstances of adaptation, thedifficulties in setting adaptation baselines and targets, and the lack of common metrics formeasuring progress on adaptation”77. The AC and the LEG also recommended that thecurrent state of knowledge is insufficient to address the mandate and that further technicalwork needs to be undertaken to develop such methodologies78.

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 21

The UNEP Adaptation Gap Report 2017,79 in contrast to previous Adaptation Gap
Reports, focused on issues relating to frameworks, comprising concepts, methodologies
and data, rather than assessing a particular dimension of the adaptation gap. It explored key
opportunities and challenges associated with assessing progress on adaptation in line withthe agreed global goal on adaptation. It reports that while the existing communication
vehicles, including NDCs, the NAP processes and National Communications, offer
valuable information on past and planned adaptation actions and support needs, additional
information is needed for a comprehensive and comparable assessment.
The report asserts that a comprehensive assessment of adaptation progress globallyrequires development and use of metrics that encompass enormous diversity. It argues that,at the same time, metrics that can be aggregated and compared at higher levels do not lendthemselves well to context specificity and meaningful progress on adaptation, particularly
at national and sub-national levels. The report synthesizes information relevant for theongoing work under the UNFCCC to prepare for the implementation of the Paris
Agreement and suggests ways to integrate and build coherence with SDGs (Sustainable
Development Goals) and Sendai Framework indicators related to adaptation.
The AC and the LEG must draw from the findings of the UNEP Adaptation Gap
Report 2017 to guide further work on the methodologies to assess adequacy andeffectiveness of adaptation and support.
On the review of the work of adaptation-related institutional arrangements, the ACrecommended that any future adaptation-related work should be assigned to existing
institutions; requested the institutions related to technology, finance and capacity building
to “strive for a balance” when providing support to Parties for mitigation and adaptation;
requested the NWP to provide relevant scientific and technical information and knowledge
to other institutions working on adaptation; requested the LEG and the Consultative Groupof Experts (CGE) to work on training in assessing vulnerability; and only encouraged“Parties to make available sufficient resources for the successful and timely
implementation of the work of adaptation-related institutions under the Convention”,
among others 80 . However, funding of the CGE is another contentious issue and a bigquestion mark hangs over its continuance in the post-2020 world81.

Nairobi Work Programme on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climatechange (NWP)
COP 11 in Nairobi in 2005 established the NWP as a mechanism to facilitate and catalyse
the development and dissemination of information and knowledge that would inform andsupport adaptation policies and practices.82
The objective of the NWP is to “assist all Parties, in particular developing countries, toimprove their understanding and assessment of impacts, vulnerability and adaptation, andto make informed decisions on practical adaptation actions and measures to respond toclimate change on a sound, scientific, technical and socio-economic basis, taking into
account current and future climate change and variability.83”
Currently, the NWP provides technical support to the work of constituted bodies, including
the AC and the LEG84. The NWP engages different stakeholders in closing knowledge
gaps, synthesizes knowledge and identifies gaps in areas identified by Parties. These range

22 Research Papers

from human settlements, health, ecosystems and water resources, economic diversification,
to indicators of climate adaptation and resilience.
At the Bonn climate talks in May 2018, following a review of the NWP, countries decided
that the NWP should continue enhancing its role as a “knowledge-for-action hub foradaptation and resilience”85 and that future NWP thematic areas should focus on extreme
weather events; oceans, coastal areas and ecosystems; drought; agriculture and foodsecurity; slow onset events; forests and grasslands; wetlands; rural systems andcommunities; cities/urban systems; and livelihood and socioeconomic dimensions inrelevant sectors such as tourism86.

C. Institutional Framework and Coherence on Adaptation
A paper released by the UNFCCC Secretariat groups adaptation-related functions of thevarious institutions in four clusters: knowledge and information sharing on adaptation;
policy advice and recommendations to Parties and the COP; technical guidance andsupport on adaptation; mobilization and provision of means of implementation to Parties
for adaptation, including finance, capacity building and technology development andtransfer87.
In relation to the institutional arrangements, the AC, at its 10th meeting, had asked
Parties to respond to questions on these issues: which institutional arrangements should
respond to what major needs of Parties; if there were gaps or overlaps in the work ofexisting institutions and how to overcome the gaps; which institutional arrangements could
be strengthened or given greater priority; and what modalities for cooperation andcollaboration exist among the institutions88.
Parties differed in their responses in a number of areas. On the kind of needs
institutional arrangements should respond to, some Parties thought that the global goal on
adaptation should serve as a guide for determining the adaptation needs of Parties, whileothers proposed that the needs of Parties should be associated with the NAP process89.
Most Parties, though, agreed that the needs of Parties relate to finance, capacity building,technology and access to information90.
The submissions identified overlaps in the areas of support provided to the NAP
process, which figures in the agendas of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI)
under the NAP agenda itself, matters relating to LDCs and the report of the Adaptation
Committee91. Overlaps were also identified in the vulnerability and adaptation assessmentsin the works of the CGE, AC and the LEG92. Some Parties reflected that the mandates onmobilization of support and review of adequacy and effectiveness given to the AC and the
LEG overlap with the SCF’s mandate 93 . Yet others pointed out that the mandate on
adequacy and effectiveness also overlaps with the mandate on modalities for accounting,an agenda item of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice(SBSTA)94. Some Parties said the SCF’s biennial assessment was duplicative of the AC’sefforts to determine how Parties’ adaptation needs were being met95.
While the paper by the UNFCCC Secretariat says that “there is no significant gap” inthe functions of adaptation-related institutional arrangements under the Convention, someParties believe that the roles of these institutions (AC, LEG, NWP) should be clearly
defined, wherein the AC would provide the strategic political overview; the LEG would

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 23

focus on technical issues such as preparing guidelines for NAPs; and the NWP would
produce knowledge by focusing on scientific and technical aspects96.
Institutions were sometimes created to respond to issues as they emerged. Now weare in a stage where the Paris Agreement gives adaptation its due status, so it is a goodtime to streamline the architecture of the institutions and identify and address the overlaps.
Each of the institutions should work towards its full potential and, if necessary, berealigned to reflect current and, if possible, future realities.

24 Research Papers

III. THE JOURNEY HEREON…
The journey of climate change adaptation has so far been full of roadblocks. From being
treated as part of the agenda of other areas, such as technology development and transfer
and capacity building, to being recognized as an independent pillar, to being treated on parwith mitigation, adaptation has come a long way.
The international effort has delivered some information, resources and capacity
building, but has yet to facilitate significant on-the-ground implementation, technology
development or access, or the establishment of robust national institutions to carry theadaptation agenda forward.
Over the years, challenges have increased for the developing world, both innegotiations as well as in the real world. In negotiations, it is proving increasingly difficultfor developing countries to access resources for adaptation and in the real world,
temperatures are increasing steadily and, as a result, climate change impacts are being felt
with greater frequency.
Through this difficult journey, developing countries have repeatedly called foradequate financial support for adaptation. But the gap between the resources available andthe resources needed to tackle increasingly catastrophic climate change has kept getting
more glaring. According to the Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate FinanceFlows, released by the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) at COP 22 in Marrakech,
mitigation-focused finance represented more than 70 per cent of public finance indeveloping countries and adaptation finance accounted for about 25 per cent of the total
financing97.
Developed countries have been dragging their feet in providing money and if not fordeveloping countries, the adaptation agenda would have long been wiped out of the
discussions under the UNFCCC and its Paris Agreement.
The GCF has only about USD 6 billion with it98, and the future of the Fund is fraught
with uncertainties over its first replenishment, needs of developing countries and theeligibility criteria for receiving funding. A new quantified goal on climate finance under
the Paris Agreement has to be established by 2025, which developing countries are
insisting should be discussed as soon as possible, but developed countries are pushing thediscussions to 2024. There is an urgent need to step up sustainable, predictable andadequate financing for adaptation.
Accounting tricks
As agreed to under the Cancun Agreements, developed countries have an obligation
to mobilize USD 100 billion per year by 2020, but achieving this is lost in accounting
battles.
There is no agreement on the definition of climate finance, although in theConvention it is clear that finance should be new and additional, over and above any
official development assistance (ODA) provided to developing countries. It is ironic thatwhile in the GCF developed countries refuse to fund certain adaptation projects, referringto them as development programmes, when it comes to accounting of financial resources,

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 25

they do not allow any space for distinction between adaptation finance and development
finance by refusing to recognize the Convention’s definition of climate finance. As aresult, there is very little real and new money for adaptation.
It is crucial to get the accounting right since the Global Stocktake, envisaged under
the Paris Agreement and to be held in 2023, must assess the adaptation support received bydeveloping countries. Developed countries must also report clearly the support they extend
for adaptation to developing countries under the UNFCCC arrangements.
The ODA should not be seen as an opportunity to “plug the gap” in UNFCCC
processes that fail to support adaptation adequately. Financing for adaptation is acommitment made by developed countries that are historically responsible for the crisis tothose bearing the brunt of it. This principle is recognized by the UNFCCC through Article
4.4, which specifies that developed countries have committed to helping ‘particularly
vulnerable’ countries meet the costs of adaptation, and that this assistance must be ‘newand additional’ to existing aid commitments. The ODA should, therefore, not become asubstitute for UNFCCC funds.
How will NDCs get implemented?
Most developing countries, nearly 85 per cent, have submitted their NDCs with anadaptation component99. The information provided demonstrates that Parties are moving tofull-scale planning and implementation of adaptation, and strengthening and scaling up of
existing efforts. The adaptation component of the NDCs reveals criteria that Parties use inprioritizing actions, for example, timing or urgency; efficacy; co-benefits, in particularpoverty reduction, sustainable development and mitigation; social inclusiveness;
technological feasibility; and cost, including economic costs and benefits 100 . But their
NDCs are conditional on receiving support from developed countries. How are they
expected to fulfill their plans envisaged in the NDCs without meaningful and predictablefinancial support? Answering this question is very important in identifying an effective
roadmap for adaptation action.
In a survey conducted in developing countries by the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) with regard to NDCs in April 2016, respondents expressed
uncertainty about translating the NDCs into concrete policies, programmes and projects.
Respondents also highlighted the need for support in developing NDC implementationplans, including guidance from technical experts and the sharing of experiences between
countries. The need to develop the capacities of national and subnational stakeholders was
also expressed.
Developed countries prefer that the private sector mobilize finance and thatdeveloping countries create an enabling environment for the private sector to operate.
However, for adaptation, the bulk of the money has to be public finance. Adaptation has
not attracted private-sector financing and it is unlikely to do so in the near future due to thelack of profit-making opportunities. Therefore, it is imperative to get the architecture rightfor adaptation financing, get real public money flowing and have accountability
mechanisms in place for both the flow and the use of money.
Adaptation vs development
To deliberate on the development-adaptation divide that emerged starkly after two

26 Research Papers

adaptation proposals were rejected by the GCF, a Technical Expert Workshop on Climate
Adaptation Finance was held on 5-6 March 2018 in Songdo, Republic of Korea. This
workshop collected views on climate adaptation practices and approaches to adaptation
finance from a range of experts from different regions and institutions, including
government, research, funding institutions and civil society organizations.
The report from the Technical Expert Workshop on Climate Adaptation Financeorganized in March 2018 at Songdo noted that the GCF intends to promote low-carbon andclimate-resilient development. Its goal is not to differentiate adaptation from development,
but to engage in development to enable it to become low-carbon and resilient. The
workshop also noted that differentiating between development and adaptation while
relevant to some extent at the international, national and subnational levels, becomes
irrelevant at the local level. The need, therefore, is to promote an integrated approach.
Politics of vulnerability
Politics around adaptation is closely linked to the politics of vulnerability. Developed
countries have made a concerted attempt to classify emerging economies, such as India,
Malaysia, Egypt, Kenya and Pakistan, as less vulnerable and, therefore, not that needful of
any concessions or even access to financing. Consider India, for instance. The Global
Climate Risk Index 2018 has put India among the six most vulnerable countries in theworld 101 . It is almost as if the developed world believes that if developing countries
advance or grow, their challenges cease to exist. Besides, the Convention and its Paris
Agreement do not mention income categorizations. It simply states that all developing
countries are eligible for financing.
While assessing vulnerability in developing countries, the World Bank estimated that
40 per cent of the development financed by overseas assistance and concessional loans issensitive to climate risk 102 . Without adaptation, the costs of climate change impacts in
exposed developing countries could range from several per cent to tens of per cent of grossdomestic product (GDP), or up to $100 billion, a year103.
It is imperative that the world understands that all developing countries, irrespectiveof their changing economic status, will remain vulnerable because they have large
development deficits, inequality and poverty to deal with. In a lot of these countries,
millions of people live below USD 2 per day.
Show me the money
Since the Convention came into existence a lot of precious time has been lost by
focusing largely on mitigation and failing to address adaptation in a meaningful manner as
explained in the section on ‘The Adaptation Journey So Far.’ The steady rise in mean
temperatures is a proof of the inaction in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Although several institutions dedicated to adaptation were created, these have notensured that the people in developing countries are safe. It is important to increase theefficiency of institutions, and these should be objectively reviewed by Parties in terms of
their relevance and need.
The world now has an adaptation goal and the pathway to the goal has to be
dynamic. The efforts of the global community should be measured against the goal ofHistory and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 27

keeping people safe from the adverse effects of climate change. The focus must be on
adaptation and financing it. Further, if the world slips on mitigation, the financial
allocation for adaptation will have to be increased, keeping in mind that adaptation has its
own limits. Funding technology and capacity-building initiatives also needs to be centre
stage in reaching the adaptation goal.

28 Research Papers

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Thus, we recommend that the following conclusions be taken on board by countries:
1. It is fundamental to protect the basic rights of people and improve their lives,
especially the poor in developing countries. In a world that is moving towards a 3°C
average increase in global temperature, adaptation must be a priority. Unless we focus
on adaptation, we cannot keep people safe.
2. It is crucial to get the international architecture on adaptation right. Whether an
institution is able to help the affected and safeguard their future should be the overarching
metric to decide whether it is working effectively. Coherence among institutions is vital.
Strong coordination mechanisms must enable integration of adaptation across all relevant
institutions.
3. It is essential to make real and adequate money available, in a sustained andpredictable manner to help developing countries adapt to climate change. Developed
countries should accept a transparent, principle-based allocation of responsibility foradaptation funding, resulting in adequate, new and additional public money to support
adaptation programmes in developing countries. Moreover, it must be recognized that
adaptation has its limits, and additional efforts should be directed to address loss anddamage.
4. Accountability should be ensured for all players so that money reaches the people.
Developed countries must report on the new and additional support they provide to
developing countries and developing countries must ensure that the money is utilized
effectively and for the right target group.
5. Mainstreaming adaptation can address both long-term and urgent adaptation
measures. However, challenges to such mainstreaming must be recognized and barriers
removed. These challenges include lack of awareness and knowledge of adaptation,
particularly in relevant ministries, leading to the issue being considered in the periphery ofother development issues; involving and coordinating stakeholders across various levels ofgovernance and sectors; and linking local impacts with national-level responses.
6. A high priority, near-term activity is to strengthen the knowledge base with more
observations, more and better data and modeling at local levels to refine understanding ofcurrent impacts and projections of future impacts, and with early insights from the field on
the most effective response. Until then, the only way to support adaptation locally isthrough inclusive and participatory sustainable development practices that pay attention tolarge-scale climate change effects in the region.
7. Adaptation is a local challenge created by global actions. The entire global
community must come together and find solutions. Developed countries also stand to beaffected, but the difference is they have more resources to tackle the impacts of climatechange and therefore higher adaptive capacity. When it comes to solutions, these should be
developed jointly. Knowledge sharing and the spirit of collaboration will provide effective
solutions for all.

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 29

ANNEX I: TIMELINE OF ADAPTATION-RELATED DECISIONSCOP 1Berlin,1995

Highlights of adaptation-related element in the decision(s)








COP 2
Geneva,1996

Transparency related, where Decision 4/CP.1 mandates Annex I
Parties and non-Annex I Parties to use the technical guidelines forassessing climate change impacts and adaptation or the simplified
default methodologies adopted by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) in their national communications(NATCOMs) and in the fulfillment of their commitments under
the Convention
Mandated SBSTA:— To carry out impact/sensitivity analyses and assess adaptation
responses;— To ensure the collection and dissemination of information on
climate change adaptation;— To lay the groundwork relating to technology transfer andresearch and development in relation to adaptation.
Decision 11/CP.1 laid down policies, programme priorities andeligibility criteria for the operating entity/entities, where it is clearlymentioned that funding for implementation of adaptation
measures and activities is to be provided by developed countries todeveloping countries
Decision 13/CP.1 tasks the Secretariat to prepare a report on
measures by Annex II Parties to transfer “environmentally soundtechnologies” and “know-how” to developing countries tofacilitate adaptation to climate change

Highlights of adaptation-related element in the decision(s)Decision 7/CP.2 expresses concern on slow progress and requests
Secretariat to “expedite the preparation of reports on adaptation
technology and the terms of transfer of technology and know-how
conducive to mitigating and adapting to climate change”
Revised guidelines on vulnerability assessments and adaptation
measures, and financial resources and transfer of technology andknow-how, in relation to NATCOMs (The latter includes
information from Annex II Parties on how they have determinedresources to meet the agreed full costs incurred by developing
countries in complying with their obligations under Article 12.1 as
new and additional; information on the provision of financial
resources to meet the agreed full incremental costs incurred bydeveloping countries in their implementation of measures covered
under Article 4.1 of the Convention; provides detailed informationon the assistance provided for the purpose of assisting developing
countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects ofclimate change in meeting the costs of adaptation to those adverse
effects; and provides detailed information on measures taken to
promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, oraccess to, environmentally sound technologies and know-how toother Parties, particularly developing country Parties.)

30 Research Papers

COP 3
Kyoto,
1997

Highlights of adaptation-related element in the decision(s)






COP 4
BuenosAires,
1998

Article 10 of the Kyoto Protocol (KP) mandates Parties toformulate, implement, publish and regularly update programs
containing measures to facilitate adequate adaptation
Article 12.8 of the KP mandates the Conference of the Parties
serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP)
to ensure that a share of proceeds from certified project activities isused to assist developing countries that are particularly vulnerable
to the adverse effects of climate change to meet the costs ofadaptation
Decision 9/CP.3 mandates continuation of work on synthesizing
and dissemination of information on environmentally soundtechnologies for adaptation
Decision 13/CP.3 addresses transparency measures in relation toassessing comprehensiveness of adaptation measures

Highlights of adaptation-related element in the decision(s)Decision 2/CP.4 mandates the Global Environment Facility(GEF) to provide funding to developing countries to implement
adaptation response measures under Article 4.1 of the Convention,
among other things
Decision 4/CP.4 requests Annex I and Annex II Parties to assist
developing countries in building capacity to adapt to the adverse
effects of climate change
Decision 4/CP.4 also urges Annex II Parties to provide a list ofenvironmentally sound technologies and know-how related toadaptation

COP 5 in Bonn (1999) and COP 6 in The Hague (2000) were focused largely on the Kyoto
Protocol.
COP
7
Marrakech,
2001

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)Marrakech arrived at several decisions on matters related to adaptation:
capacity building; technology development and transfer; andimplementation of Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the Convention, which
are essentially on meeting specific needs of developing countries. COP7
also decided that three funding institutions would be established: the Least
Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), the Special Climate Change Fund
(SCCF), and the Adaptation Fund (AF). (More on these institutions in
Section II of the paper.)(Article 4.8 of the Convention reads: In the implementation of the commitments inthis Article, the Parties shall give full consideration to what actions are necessary under
the Convention, including actions related to funding, insurance and the transfer ofHistory and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 31
technology, to meet the specific needs and concerns of developing country Parties arisingfrom the adverse effects of climate change and/or the impact of the implementation of
response measures, especially on: (a) Small island countries; (b) Countries with low-lying
coastal areas; (c) Countries with arid and semi-arid areas, forested areas and areas liable
to forest decay; (d) Countries with areas prone to natural disasters; (e) Countries withareas liable to drought and desertification; (f) Countries with areas of high urban
atmospheric pollution; (g) Countries with areas with fragile ecosystems, including
mountainous ecosystems; (h) Countries whose economies are highly dependent on income
generated from the production, processing and export, and/or on consumption of fossil
fuels and associated energy-intensive products; and (i) Land-locked and transit countries.
Further, the Conference of the Parties may take actions, as appropriate, with respect tothis paragraph.)(Article 4.9 of the Convention reads: The Parties shall take full account of thespecific needs and special situations of the least developed countries in their actions withregard to funding and transfer of technology.)
The key highlights of the decisions taken at Marrakech follow:A) Decision 2/CP.7: Through decision 2/CP.7, the scope of a capacitybuilding framework included vulnerability and adaptation assessment, as
well as capacity building for implementation of adaptation measures. It was
mentioned in the decision that the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) andthe Small Island Developing States (SIDS) were among the most vulnerable
to extreme weather events and the adverse effects of climate change andhad the least capacity to cope with and adapt to the adverse effects ofclimate change. A number of needs and priority areas for capacity buildingin the LDCs and SIDS were identified. These included developing andenhancing technical capacities and skills to carry out and effectively
integrate vulnerability and adaptation assessments into sustainable
development programmes and develop national adaptation programmes ofaction (NAPAs), and strengthen the capacity of meteorological andhydrological services to collect, analyze, interpret and disseminate weather
and climate information to support implementation of NAPAs.
B) Decision 4/CP.7: Through Decision 4/CP.7, the COP decided toadopt the framework for meaningful and effective actions to enhance theimplementation of Article 4, paragraph 5 of the Convention, which is ontransferring technologies to developing countries. (Article 4.5 reads: The
developed country Parties and other developed Parties included in Annex II shall takeall practicable steps to promote, facilitate and finance, as appropriate, the transfer of, oraccess to, environmentally sound technologies and knowhow to other Parties, particularly
developing country Parties, to enable them to implement the provisions of the Convention.
In this process, the developed country Parties shall support the development andenhancement of endogenous capacities and technologies of developing country Parties.
Other Parties and organizations in a position to do so may also assist in facilitating thetransfer of such technologies.)
The framework defined technology needs and needs assessments as “a setof country-driven activities that identify and determine the mitigation andadaptation technology priorities of Parties other than developed country
Parties, and other developed Parties not included in Annex II, particularly
developing country Parties...”
The framework also urged developed countries and Annex II Parties to“facilitate and support the needs assessment process”, while recognizing
the special circumstances of the LDCs.

32 Research Papers

C) Decision 5/CP.7: Through Decision 5/CP.7, COP 7 insisted that
adaptation action must follow an “assessment and evaluation process” anddecided that the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other multilateraland bilateral sources would support the implementation of activities such as
training in specialized fields relevant to adaptation.
Decision 5/CP.7 also has a section on vulnerability and adaptation, wherein
the COP decided to: Support enabling activities for vulnerability and adaptationassessment; Enhance technical training for integrated climate change impact
and vulnerability and adaptation assessments;
 Enhance capacity to integrate adaptation into sustainable
development programmes; Promote the transfer of adaptation technologies;
 Establish pilot or demonstration projects to show how adaptation
planning and assessment can be practically translated into projects;
 Support capacity-building, including institutional capacity, forpreventive measures, planning, preparedness of disasters relating toclimate change; Strengthen existing and, where needed, establish early warning
systems for extreme weather events.
The decision also tasked the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and/or
the Adaptation Fund (AF), with supporting the implementation of thefollowing activities:
 Start to implement adaptation activities promptly where sufficient
information is available to warrant such activities, inter alia, in theareas of water resources management, land management,
agriculture, health, infrastructure development, fragile ecosystems,
including mountainous ecosystems, and integrated coastal zone
management; Improve the monitoring of diseases and vectors affected byclimate change, and related forecasting and early-warning systems,
and in this context improving disease control and prevention;
 Support capacity building, including institutional capacity, forpreventive measures, planning, preparedness and management ofdisasters relating to climate change, including contingency
planning, in particular, for droughts and floods in areas prone toextreme weather events;
 Strengthen existing and, where needed, establish national andregional centres and information networks for rapid response to
extreme weather events, utilizing information technology as muchas possible.
The decision also established a work programme for the implementation of
Article 4.9 of the Convention, and invited Annex II Parties to contribute
financially to the programme. It was decided that a LDC Fund (LDCF)
would be established and Annex II Parties were invited to support LDCs
for the activities ranging from promotion of public awareness programmes
to development and transfer of adaptation technologies to strengthening
the capacity of meteorological and hydrological services, etc.
(Article 4.9 of the Convention reads: The Parties shall take full account of thespecific needs and special situations of the least developed countries in their actions with

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 33
regard to funding and transfer of technology.)D) Decision 6/CP.7: Through Decision 6/CP.7, the COP decided that
the GEF should provide financial resources to developing countries forcertain activities, including those identified in Decision 5/CP.7. It was alsodecided the SCCF shall be established to finance activities, programmes
and measures that are complementary to the resources allocated to the
GEF for the funding of the adaptation activities mentioned in Decision
5/CP.7.
E) Decision 10/CP.7: Through the decision on Funding under the Kyoto
Protocol, the COP decided that an Adaptation Fund (AF) shall beestablished to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes indeveloping countries. The AF shall be financed from “the share ofproceeds on the clean development mechanism project activities and othersources of funding”, the decision reads.
COP 8
New
Delhi,
2002

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)



COP 9
Milan,
2003

Decision 8/CP.8 invited Parties, LEG and the GEF to submit
views on strategies for implementing national adaptation
programmes of action (NAPAs) and ways and means to addresselements of the LDC Work Programme to meet urgent andimmediate adaptation needs

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)Decision 1/CP.9 stresses the need for Annex II Parties to provide
detailed information on their assistance to developing countries inmeeting costs of adaptation
Decision 2/CP.9 concluded that enhancement of capacity andsupport is necessary for vulnerability and adaptation, among otherareas
Decision 4/CP.9 requests the GEF to operationalize the pilotingof an operational approach to adaptation as soon as possible
Decision 5/CP.9 decided that adaptation shall have top priority forfunding under the SCCF; implementation of adaptation activities
shall be supported through the Special Climate Change Fund basedon information submitted by applicant Parties (information spansareas such as water resources management, land management,
agriculture, health, infrastructure development, fragile ecosystems,
including mountain ecosystems, and integrated coastal zone
management; monitoring of diseases and vectors affected byclimate change, and related forecasting and early warning systems,
and in this context improving disease control and prevention;
supporting capacity-building, including institutional capacity, forpreventive measures, planning, preparedness and management ofdisasters relating to climate change, including contingency
planning, in particular, for droughts and floods in areas prone toextreme weather events; Strengthening existing and, where needed,
establishing national and regional centres and information

34 Research Papers



COP 10
BuenosAires,
2004

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)







COP 11Montreal,
2005

networks for rapid response to extreme weather events)
Decision 6/CP.9 provided further guidance for the operation of
the LDCF
Decision 10/CP.9 requested the SBSTA to initiate its work on
scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of impacts of, andvulnerability and adaptation to, climate change

COP 10 decided on the Buenos Aires Programme of Work on
Adaptation and Response Measures through Decision 1/CP.10
Decision 1/CP.10:— Invited developing countries to make use of the strategic
priorities on adaptation and capacity-building funded by GEF;
— Urged Annex II Parties to contribute to the SCCF and othermultilateral and bilateral sources to support, “as a toppriority”, adaptation;— Insisted that adaptation action follow an assessment andevaluation process based on NATCOM and/or relevant
information;— Carry out pilot and demonstration projects to take forward
adaptation projects identified in NATCOMs;— Promote technology transfer for adaptation in priority sectors,
including agriculture and water resources;— Requested the GEF to report to the COP on how the abovementioned activities were supported and what are the barriers,
obstacles and opportunities;— Requested the GEF to expand support for the elaboration ofadaptation strategies as part of the NATCOM process in nonAnnex I countries;— Requested the SBSTA to develop a 5-year programme of workon the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects ofimpacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change.
Decision 2/CP.10 mandated ensuring of capacity-building fordeveloping countries so that NATCOMs and NAPAs provide agood measure of successful capacity-building
Decision 4/CP.10 requested the LEG to prepare possible elements
to be considered on the role of the Group in support of theimplementation of NAPAs

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)Decision 1/CP.11 resolved to engage in dialogue to address action
on adaptation (dialogues among other things to explore ways topromote access by developing countries to cleaner andtechnologies for adaptation)
Decision 2/CP.11 adopted a 5-year work programme of the
SBSTA on impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change(which came to be known as the Nairobi Work Programme)
Decision 3/CP.11 provided further guidance for the operation ofHistory and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 35
the LDCF, where implementation of activities in NAPAs and theirfunding were given priority, and invited Annex II Parties tocontinue contributing to the LDCF
COP 12
Nairobi,
2006

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)COP 13
Bali,
2007

Decision 2/CP.12 requested the GEF to accord due priority toadaptation activities
Decision 3/CP.13 notes concerns of developing countries over
implications of the requirements for co-financing for adaptation
project activities

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)Decision 1/CP.13: The Bali COP, which established the Bali Action Plan
(BAP) through Decision 1/CP.13, decided to launch “a comprehensive
process to enable the full, effective and sustained implementation of theConvention through long-term cooperative action”. The comprehensive
process addressed enhanced action on adaptation, financing for adaptation,and technology transfer for adaptation. The relationship of mitigation andadaptation from being hand in glove transitioned to that of equals and thatis why Bali is considered to be a benchmark COP in relation to adaptation.
The comprehensive process included addressing “Enhanced action on
adaptation” as one of the key pillars of climate change action. This, said the
BAP, would entail the consideration of: International cooperation to support urgent implementation of adaptation
actions, including through vulnerability assessments, prioritization of actions,financial needs assessments, capacity-building and response strategies,
integration of adaptation actions into sectoral and national planning, specificprojects and programmes, means to incentivize the implementation ofadaptation actions, and other ways to enable climate-resilient development andreduce vulnerability of all Parties, taking into account the urgent andimmediate needs of developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to theadverse effects of climate change, especially the least developed countries andsmall island developing States, and further taking into account the needs ofcountries in Africa affected by drought, desertification and floods;
 Risk management and risk reduction strategies, including risk sharing andtransfer mechanisms such as insurance; Disaster reduction strategies and means to address loss and damage associatedwith climate change impacts in developing countries that are particularly
vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change; Economic diversification to build resilience; Ways to strengthen the catalytic role of the Convention in encouraging
multilateral bodies, the public and private sectors and civil society, building on
synergies among activities and processes, as a means to support adaptation in a
coherent and integrated manner.
The BAP also provided for enhanced action on technology development
and transfer to support action on mitigation and adaptation and for thefollowing to be considered: Effective mechanisms and enhanced means for the removal of obstacles to, and36 Research Papers



provision of financial and other incentives for, scaling up of the development andtransfer of technology to developing country Parties in order to promote access toaffordable environmentally sound technologies;
Ways to accelerate deployment, diffusion and transfer of affordable
environmentally sound technologies;
Cooperation on research and development of current, new and innovativetechnology, including win-win solutions;
The effectiveness of mechanisms and tools for technology cooperation in specificsectors.

The BAP also called for enhanced action on the provision of financial
resources and investment to support actions on mitigation, adaptation andtechnology cooperation. Under this, the BAP laid down the considerationof the following: Improved access to adequate, predictable and sustainable financial resources
and financial and technical support, and the provision of new and additional
resources, including official and concessional funding for developing country
Parties; Positive incentives for developing country Parties for the enhanced
implementation of national mitigation strategies and adaptation action;
 Innovative means of funding to assist developing country Parties that are
particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change in meeting thecost of adaptation;
 Means to incentivize the implementation of adaptation actions on the basis ofsustainable development policies; Mobilization of public- and private-sector funding and investment, including
facilitation of climate-friendly investment choices; Financial and technical support for capacity-building in the assessment of thecosts of adaptation in developing countries, in particular the most vulnerable
ones, to aid in determining their financial needs.
COP 14
Poznan,2008

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)



COP
15
Copenhagen,2009

Decision 4/CP.14 asks the GEF to continue to enhance action on
adaptation
Decision 5/CP.14 provides further guidance to the LDCF, where
the GEF is tasked to speed up the process for LDCs to accessfunding and other support for NAPAs

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)COP 16
Cancun,2010

Decision 2/CP.15 only notes the Copenhagen Accord

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)COP 16 established the Cancun Adaptation Framework (CAF), which
envisaged a dedicated framework for adaptation work under theConvention and further established adaptation on par with mitigation.

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 37
Through its Decision 1/CP.16, COP 16 affirmed that Parties share a vision
for long-term cooperative action to achieve the objective of theConvention and that the vision would address mitigation, adaptation,
finance, technology development and transfer, and capacity building in a“balanced, integrated and comprehensive manner to enhance and achieve
the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention, now,
up to and beyond 2012”.
The decision further affirmed that adaptation must be addressed with thesame priority as mitigation and requires appropriate institutionalarrangements to enhance adaptation action and support.
While the decision laid down that all Parties should cooperate througheffective and enhanced means, consistent with the principles of theConvention, and enhance technology development and the transfer oftechnologies to developing countries to enable mitigation and adaptation
action, it also highlighted that “scaled-up, new, additional, adequate andpredictable financial resources” were necessary to address the adaptationand mitigation needs of developing countries.
Decision 1/CP.16 has a dedicated section on ‘Enhanced action on
Adaptation’, which comprises the following:
The decision: Agrees that adaptation is a challenge and enhanced action andinternational cooperation on adaptation is urgently required toenable and support the implementation of adaptation actions
aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience indeveloping countries; Affirms that enhanced action on adaptation should be undertakenin accordance with the Convention, should follow a countrydriven, gender-sensitive, participatory and fully transparent
approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups,
communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided
by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional andindigenous knowledge, with a view to integrating adaptation into
relevant social, economic and environmental policies and actions,where appropriate; Decides to establish the Cancun Adaptation Framework (seebelow) with the objective of enhancing action on adaptation,
including through international cooperation and coherent
consideration of matters relating to adaptation under theConvention;
 Decides to establish a process to enable LDCs to formulate andimplement NAPAs;
 Requests developed countries to provide developing countries withlong-term, scaled-up, predictable, new and additional finance,technology and capacity-building; Decides to establish an Adaptation Committee to promote theimplementation of enhanced action on adaptation in a coherent
manner; Decides that all Parties should use existing channels to provide
information on support provided and received for adaptation
actions in developing countries.

38 Research Papers
On finance, technology and capacity building, through Decision 1/CP.16,
the COP decided that: A significant share of new multilateral funding for adaptation
should flow through the Green Climate Fund (GCF);
 The objective of enhanced action on technology development andtransfer (which includes different stages of the technology cycle:
research and development, demonstration, deployment, diffusion
and transfer of technology) is to support action on mitigation andadaptation in order to achieve the full implementation of theConvention;
 Priority areas on technology development and transfer may
include: deployment of soft and hard technologies for the
implementation of adaptation and mitigation actions; anddevelopment and implementation of national technology plans for
mitigation and adaptation;
 Capacity-building support to developing countries should beenhanced with a view to strengthening endogenous capacities atthe subnational, national or regional levels, as appropriate, taking
into account gender aspects, to contribute to the achievement of
the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention.
Cancun Adaptation Framework:
COP 16 established the CAF and invited all Parties, taking into accounttheir common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities,
and specific national and regional development priorities, objectives andcircumstances, to undertake:— Planning, prioritizing and implementing adaptation actions identified innational and subnational adaptation plans and strategies, NAPAs of theLDCs, National Communications (NATCOMs), technology needs
assessments and other relevant national planning documents;— Impact, vulnerability and adaptation assessments;— Strengthening institutional capacities and enabling environments foradaptation, including for climate-resilient development and vulnerability
reduction;— Building resilience of socio-economic and ecological systems, including
through economic diversification and sustainable management of natural
resources;—Enhancing climate change related disaster risk reduction strategies,
taking into consideration the Hyogo Framework for Action, whereappropriate, early warning systems, risk assessment and management, andsharing and transfer mechanisms such as insurance, at the local, national,
subregional and regional levels, as appropriate;—Measures to enhance understanding, coordination and cooperation withregard to climate change induced displacement, migration and planned
relocation, where appropriate, at the national, regional and international
levels;—Research, development, demonstration, diffusion, deployment andtransfer of technologies, practices and processes, and capacity-building foradaptation, with a view to promoting access to technologies, in particular indeveloping countries;—Strengthening data, information and knowledge systems, education andpublic awareness;—Improving climate-related research and systematic observation forclimate data collection, archiving, analysis and modelling in order toprovide decision makers at the national and regional levels with improved
climate-related data and information.

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 39
COP 17
Durban,2011

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)






COP 18
Doha,
2012

Decision 1/CP.17 established the Ad Hoc Working Group on the
Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (ADP), which decided towork on adaptation, among other areas
Decision 2/CP.17 on the outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc
Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA)
has a section on adaptation, with several provisions in relation tothe:— Adaptation Committee— Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN)— Capacity buildingStanding Committee on Finance (SCF) was establishedDecision 5/CP.17 is on National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), withthe following sections:— Framing;— A process to enable least developed country Parties toformulate and implement national adaptation plans;— An invitation to developing country Parties that are not least
developed country Parties to employ the modalities fornational adaptation plans;— Reporting, monitoring and evaluation.

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)Decision 1/CP.18:— Decided that finance, technology transfer and capacity
building is to be provided to developing countries to support
their adaptation (and mitigation) actions;— Decided on a share of proceeds to cover administrative
expenses and assist developing countries that are particularly
vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change to meet thecosts of adaptation;— Decided that the COP and its subsidiary bodies will continue
their work to enhance action on adaptation, as provided for in
the CAF, and in progressing such work, give consideration toissues relating to coherence of the actions of and support
provided to developing countries;— Requested the Adaptation Committee to consider an annual
adaptation forum;— Decided on enhanced action on technology development andtransfer to support action on mitigation and adaptation;enhanced action on the provision of financial resources andinvestment to support action on mitigation and adaptation andtechnology cooperation.
In Decision 6/CP.18, the COP requested the GCF to report to the
COP on implementation of balanced allocation of GCF resources
between adaptation and mitigation activities; and to initiate aprocess to collaborate with the Adaptation Committee, theTechnology Executive Committee and other thematic bodies
Decision 8/CP.18 requested the GEF, through the SCCF, to40 Research Papers



COP 19Warsaw,
2013

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)








COP 20Lima,
2014consider how to enable activities for the preparation of the NAP
process for interested developing countries that are not LDCs
Decision 9/CP.18 urged developed countries to mobilize financial
support for the NAP process for interested developing countries
that are not LDCs

Decision 1/CP.19 emphasized that enhanced action andinternational cooperation on adaptation is urgently required toenable and support the implementation of adaptation actions
aimed at reducing vulnerability and building resilience indeveloping countries
Requested the ADP to elaborate elements for a draft negotiating
text, taking into consideration its work on adaptation, among otherareas
Decision 2/CP.19 established the Warsaw international mechanism
for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts, under
the CAF
Decision 3/CP.19 on long-term climate finance:— Called on developed countries to channel a substantial shareof public climate funds to adaptation activities;— Requested developed countries to provide information (intheir biennial submissions) on how they were ensuring thebalance in financing between adaptation and mitigation;— Requested the SCF to assess how adaptation needs can mosteffectively be met by climate finance.
Decision 4/CP.19 requested the GCF to take into account theurgent and immediate needs of developing countries that are
particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change
while allocating resources for adaptation

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)Decision 1/CP.20, Lima Call for Climate Action:— Decided that the new legal instrument (to be decided in 2015)
shall address in a balanced manner, inter alia, mitigation,
adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer, andcapacity-building, and transparency of action and support;— Urged developed countries to provide and mobilize enhanced
financial support to developing countries for adaptation
actions;— Invited all Parties to consider communicating theirundertakings in adaptation planning or consider including an
adaptation component in their intended nationally determined
contributions;— Decided to continue the technical examination ofopportunities with high mitigation potential, including thosewith adaptation, health and sustainable development cobenefits, in the period 2015–2020.

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 41
COP 21
Paris,
2015

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)A. Decision 1/CP.21
The decision:
 Noted that adaptation needs were expressed by many developing
countries in their intended nationally determined contributions(INDCs); Requested the Adaptation Committee (AC) and the LDC Expert
Group (LEG) to jointly develop modalities to recognize adaptation
efforts of developing countries; Requested the AC to review the work of adaptation-related
institutional arrangements under the Convention; and to consider
methodologies for assessing adaptation needs to assist developing
countries; Requested Parties to strengthen regional cooperation on adaptation;
 Requested the AC and the LEG, in collaboration with the SCF todevelop methodologies and make recommendations on: taking thenecessary steps to facilitate the mobilization of support for adaptationin developing countries to limit global average temperature increase to
2°C and 1.5°C; and review the adequacy and effectiveness ofadaptation and support;
 Requested the GCF to expedite support for the LDCs and otherdeveloping countries for the formulation of NAPs;
 Decided that financial resources to developing countries should
enhance the implementation of their policies, strategies, regulations
and action plans and their climate change actions in relation to both
mitigation and adaptation;
 Recognized that the AF may serve the Agreement; Requested the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement(APA), in developing the modalities, procedures and guidelines,
consider that: parties report information on adaptation action andplanning; and support provided; Requested the APA to identify the sources of input for the Global
Stocktake (GST) and provide information on: the overall effect of the
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of Parties, the state ofadaptation efforts, support, experiences and priorities from theadaptation communications; the mobilization and provision of
support, among others;
 Resolved to enhance the provision of “urgent and adequate finance,technology and capacity-building support” by developed countries toenhance the level of ambition of pre-2020 action by Parties, and in thisregard “strongly urges” developed countries “to scale up their level offinancial support, with a concrete road map to achieve the goal of
jointly providing USD 100 billion annually by 2020 for mitigation andadaptation while significantly increasing adaptation finance fromcurrent levels and to further provide appropriate technology andcapacity-building support”;
 Decided to launch, in the period 2016-2020, a technical examination
process on adaptation.
B. Paris Agreement: All relevant articles of the PA speak to adaptation as anintegral element in the fight against climate change, besides dedicating a

42 Research Papers
separate article to adaptation (Article 7 of the PA, see below).
 Article 2.1b states that the agreement, “in enhancing theimplementation of the Convention” aims to strengthen the global
response to the threat of climate change by “increasing the ability toadapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate
resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a mannerthat does not threaten food production”.
 Article 3 states that NDCs are the global response to climate change
and “all Parties are to undertake and communicate ambitious efforts as
defined in Articles 4,7,9,10,11 and 13 (Article 7 is dedicated toadaptation)…The efforts of all Parties will represent a progression
over time, while recognizing the need to support developing country
Parties for the effective implementation of this Agreement.” Article 4.7 of the PA states that the mitigation co-benefits resulting
from Parties’ adaptation actions can contribute to mitigation outcomes.
 Article 5.2 encourages Parties to take action to implement and support
alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation
approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests,
while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, noncarbon benefits associated with such approaches.
 Article 6.6 recognizes that the Conference of the Parties serving as themeeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA) shall ensure ashare of the proceeds from the activities (from a mechanism tocontribute to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and support
sustainable development, as provided for in Article 6.4) is used to assist
developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse
effects of climate change to meet the costs of adaptation.
 Article 6.8 states that Parties recognize the importance of non-market
approaches in assisting in the implementation of their NDCs and thatthese approaches shall aim to promote mitigation and adaptation
ambition, among others.
 Article 9.1 states that developed countries “shall provide financial
resources” to assist developing countries for both mitigation andadaptation “in continuation of their existing obligations under theConvention” (emphasis added).
 Article 9.4 states that the provision of scaled-up financial resources
should aim to achieve a balance between adaptation and mitigation,
taking into account country-driven strategies, and the priorities andneeds of developing countries…
 Article 10.6 states that support, including financial support, “shall” beprovided to developing countries…including for strengthening
cooperative action on technology development and transfer at
different stages of the technology cycle, with a view to achieving abalance between support for mitigation and adaptation. It also statesthat the GST shall take into account available information on efforts
related to support technology development and transfer for developing
countries.
 Article 11.1 states that capacity-building should enhance the capacity
and ability of developing countries…to implement adaptation andmitigation actions, among others.
 Article 13.5 states that the purpose of the Transparency Framework
for action is to provide a clear understanding of climate change
action…including clarity and tracking of progress towards Parties’
individual NDCs under Article 4 and adaptation actions under Article
7, “including good practices, priorities, needs and gaps, to inform theglobal stocktake under Article 14.”

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 43Article 13.6 states that the purpose of the Transparency Frameworkfor support is to provide clarity on support provided and received byParties in the context of climate change actions under Articles
4,7,9,10,11…and provide an overview of aggregate financial support
provided to inform the GST.
Article 13.8 states that each Party should provide information related
to climate change impacts and adaptation under Article 7.
Article 14 states that the CMA shall periodically take stock of theAgreement’s implementation to assess the “collective progress towards
achieving the purpose of this Agreement and its long-term goals” byconsidering mitigation, adaptation and the means of implementationand support, and in the light of equity and the best available science.

C. Decision 3/CP.21: Through decision 3/CP.21, on the report of the
Adaptation Committee, the COP:
 Invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) toenhance outreach activities that would facilitate policymakers’
understanding of the impact of different levels of warming on
adaptation planning and actions; Requested the TEC, in collaboration with the CTCN, the AC and the
LEG to consider how it can help Parties align their technology needs
assessments with the process to formulate and implement NAPs;
 Requested the AC to further strengthen cooperation with the SCF toenhance coherence and collaboration regarding adaptation finance.
D. Decision 4/CP.21: Through decision 4/CP.21, on National Adaptation
Plans (NAPs), the COP:
 Noted with concern the lack of funding in LDCF and SCCF toformulate and implement NAPs;
 Noted that gaps and needs remained in the process to formulate andimplement NAPs, including in access to financial support, data andreporting; Invited the GCF to consider how to improve access to financial
support for the process to formulate and implement NAPs;
 Invited developed countries to contribute to the LDCF and SCCF.
E. Decision 5/CP.21: Through Decision 5/CP.21, on long-term climate
finance, the COP:
 Urged developed countries to continue efforts to channel a substantial
share of public climate funds to adaptation and to achieve a greaterbalance between finance for mitigation and adaptation, while
recognizing the importance of adaptation finance.
F. 7/CP.21: Through Decision 7/CP.21, on the report of the GCF to the
COP and guidance to the GCF, the COP:
 Invited the GCF Board to take into account in its programmatic
priorities the Cancun Adaptation Framework; Invited the GCF Board to consider ways to provide support for
facilitating access to environmentally sound technologies in developing
countries and for undertaking collaborative research and development
for enabling developing countries to enhance their mitigation andadaptation actions.
G. Decision 8/CP.21: Through the decision on the report of the GEF to the
COP and guidance to the GEF, the COP:

44 Research Papers


Encouraged additional voluntary financial contributions to provide
support for the NAP process through contributions to the LDCF and
SCCF.

H. Article 7 of the Paris Agreement Article 7.1 established the global goal on adaptation to enhance
adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to
climate change and contribute to sustainable development andensure an adequate adaptation response in the context of thetemperature goal of the PA.
 Article 7.2: Parties recognize that adaptation is a global challenge Article 7.3: Adaptation efforts of developing countries shall berecognized in accordance with the modalities to be adopted by the
CMA Article 7.4: Recognition that current need for adaptation issignificant and greater mitigation could reduce the need for“additional adaptation efforts” and that greater adaptation needs
could involve greater adaptation costs
 Article 7.5: Acknowledgement that adaptation action should becountry-driven, gender responsive, participatory and fullytransparent
 Article 7.6: Recognition of the importance of support andinternational cooperation on adaptation efforts
 Article 7.7: Parties to strengthen cooperation on enhancing
adaptation action and take into account the CAF
 Article 7.9: Each Party to engage in adaptation planning processes,
which may include: implementation of adaptation actions; process
to formulate and implement NAPs; climate change impacts andvulnerability assessments; monitoring, evaluating and learning from
adaptation actions; building the resilience of socioeconomic andecological systems, including through economic diversification andsustainable management of natural resources Article 7.10: Each Party to submit and periodically update anadaptation communication, without any additional burden on
developing countries
 Article 7.11: Adaptation communication shall be submitted andupdated “as a component of or in conjunction with” othercommunications or documents, including a NAP, an NDC or a
NATCOM Article 7.12: Adaptation communications to be recorded in a
public registry Article 7.13: “Continuous and enhanced international support shallbe provided” to developing countries for the implementation of
Article 7.7, 7.9, 7.10 and 7.11.
 Global stocktake shall: recognize adaptation efforts of developing
countries; enhance implementation of adaptation action; review theadequacy and effectiveness of adaptation and support provided foradaptation; and review the overall progress in achieving the global
goal on adaptation

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 45
COP 22Marrakech,
2016

Highlights of adaptation-related elements in the decision(s)








Decision 1/CP.22 requested the Ad Hoc Working Group on the
Paris Agreement (APA) in its consideration of the necessary
preparatory work on the Adaptation Fund to address thegovernance and institutional arrangements, safeguards andoperating modalities for the Adaptation Fund to serve the Paris
Agreement
Decision 5/CP.22 on the review and report of the Adaptation
Committee:— Requested the AC to accelerate preparations for the 2017
technical examination process on adaptation;— Requested the AC to ensure that the technical examination
process on adaptation meets its objective of identifying
concrete opportunities for strengthening resilience, reducing
vulnerabilities and increasing the understanding andimplementation of adaptation action, including throughtechnical papers;— Noted with concern the shortfall in resources available to theAC, the need for supplementary financial resources.
Decision 6/CP.22 on NAPs:— Noted with concern that 12 funding proposals seeking tosupport elements of countries’ work in the process toformulate and implement NAPs were technically cleared by
the GEF but were awaiting funding under the LDCF;— Encouraged developed countries to contribute to the LDCF
and SCCF.
Decision 7/CP.22 on long-term finance:— Urged developed countries to continue efforts to channel asubstantial share of public climate funds to adaptation
activities and to strive to achieve a greater balance between
finance for mitigation and for adaptation;— Noted the need to continue efforts to significantly scale up
adaptation finance and invited Parties to consider the key
messages from the long-term climate finance (LTF) in-session
workshop;— Quoted figures from the Second Biennial Assessment andOverview of Climate Finance Flows to say that mitigationfocused finance represented more than 70 per cent of the
public finance in developing countries reported in 2013 and2014; adaptation finance provided to developing countries
accounted for about 25 per cent of the total finance; morethan 80 per cent of MDB investments focused on mitigation,and less than 20 per cent on adaptation.

46 Research Papers

ENDNOTES
1

See https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/state-of-climate-2017-%E2%80%93-extreme-weatherand-high-impacts.
2
See https://www.sciencealert.com/earth-carbon-dioxide-co2-levels-highest-for-800-000-years.
3
See https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/state-of-climate-2017-%E2%80%93-extreme-weatherand-high-impacts.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Civil Society Equity Review Group, Equity and the Ambition Ratchet: Towards a Meaningful 2018
Facilitative Dialogue (November 2017). Available from civilsocietyreview.org/report2017.
7
See IPCC, AR5, Working Group 2 report.
8
See https://climate.nasa.gov/solutions/adaptation-mitigation/.
9
See Article 2.1-a of the Paris Agreement.
10
See http://web.unep.org/adaptationgapreport/sites/unep.org.adaptationgapreport/files/documents/PressRelease_AdaptationGap2016.pdf.
11
Fair Shares: A Civil Society Equity Review of INDCs (November 2015). Available fromhttp://civilsocietyreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/CSO_FullReport.pdf.
12
See https://www.clubofrome.org/about-us/.
13
E. Lisa F. Schipper. “Conceptual History of Adaptation in the UNFCCC Process," Review of European
Community and International Environmental Law Vol. 15, Issue 1 (May 2006), pp. 82-92.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
See Article 2 of the UNFCCC.
18
See Articles 4.3 and 4.4 of the UNFCCC.
19
Personal communication with a senior negotiator
20
Ibid.
21
See Article 4 of the UNFCCC.
22
E. Lisa F. Schipper. “Conceptual History of Adaptation in the UNFCCC Process," Review of European
Community and International Environmental Law Vol. 15, Issue 1 (May 2006), pp. 82-92.
23
Saleemul Huq , Yousuf Mahid and Nadine Suliman, “Evolution of Climate Change Adaptation Policy and
Negotiation,” in Resilience, Zinta Zommers and Keith Alverson, eds. (Chennai: Elsevier, 2018), pp. 63-76.
24
Personal communication with a senior nego tiator
25
Saleemul Huq , Yousuf Mahid and Nadine Suliman, “Evolution of Climate Change Adaptation Policy and
Negotiation,” in Resilience, Zinta Zommers and Keith Alverson, eds. (Chennai: Elsevier, 2018), pp. 63-76.
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid.
32
See https://unfccc.int/topics/resilience/workstreams/nairobi-work-programme/introduction.
33
E. Lisa F. Schipper. “Conceptual History of Adaptation in the UNFCCC Process," Review of European
Community and International Environmental Law Vol. 15, Issue 1 (May 2006), pp. 82-92.
34
Ibid.
35
Saleemul Huq , Yousuf Mahid and Nadine Suliman, “Evolution of Climate Change Adaptation Policy and
Negotiation,” in Resilience, Zinta Zommers and Keith Alverson, eds. (Chennai: Elsevier, 2018), pp. 63-76.
36
Nina Hall and Asa Persson, “Global climate adaptation governance: Why is it not legally binding?”
European Journal of International Relations (8 September 2017). Available fromhttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1354066117725157.
37
Saleemul Huq , Yousuf Mahid and Nadine Suliman, “Evolution of Climate Change Adaptation Policy and
Negotiation,” in Resilience, Zinta Zommers and Keith Alverson, eds. (Chennai: Elsevier, 2018), pp. 63-76.
38
See http://unfccc.int/ttclear/support/technology-mechanism.html.
39
Meena Raman, “The Climate Change Battle in Paris: An initial analysis of the Paris COP21 and the Paris
Agreement.” Available from https://www.twn.my/title2/climate/info.service/2016/cc160202.htm.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
43
See Article 2 of the Paris Agreement.

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 47

44

See “The effectiveness of climate finance: a review of the Adaptation Fund,” by Nella Canales Trujillo andSmita Nakhooda.
45
See http://fiftrustee.worldbank.org/Pages/adapt.aspx.
46
See http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2016/cmp12/eng/08a01.pdf#page=2.
47
See Decision 1/CP.23.
48
UNFCCC Website
49
See http://fiftrustee.worldbank.org/Pages/ldcf.aspx.
50
See “Climate Change adaptation and the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF): Qualitative insightsfrom policy implementation in the Asia-Pacific,” by Benjamin K. Sevacool, Bjorn-Ola Linnér and Richard J.
T. Klein.
51
See https://www.thegef.org/topics/special-climate-change-fund-sccf.
52
See http://fiftrustee.worldbank.org/Pages/sccf.aspx.
53
Para. 98 of Decision 1/C.P 16
54
See https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/bodies/the-big-picture/what-are-bodies.
55
Para. 100 of Decision 1/C.P 16
56
Para. 102, Decision 1/CP.16
57
See Decision 3/CP.17.
58
GCF’s GI: See
https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/574763/Governing_Instrument.pdf/caa6ce45-cd54-4ab09e37-fb637a9c6235.
59
Decision B.06/06
60
See Decision B.13/09.
61
See https://twnetwork.org/climate-change-gcf/gcf-Board-decides-resources-developing-countriesadaptation-plans.
62
See http://www.greenclimate.fund/how-we-work/resource-mobilization.
63
See http://twn.my/title2/climate/info.service/2018/cc180702.htm.
64
See http://twn.my/title2/climate/info.service/2018/cc180702.htm.
65
See http://twn.my/title2/climate/info.service/2018/cc180301.htm.
66
Compendium of GCF Board Decisions out of B.20. Annex III on Seventh Report of the GCF to the COP to
the UNFCCC.
67
UNFCCC Website
68
See Document FCCC/SBI/2017/6.
69
Ibid.
70
Compendium of GCF Board Decisions out of B.20. Annex III on Seventh Report of the GCF to the COP to
the UNFCCC.
71
See Document FCCC/SBI/2017/6.
72
See http://unfccc.int/adaptation/groups_committees/adaptation_committee/items/6053.php.
73
See Document: FCCC/SB/2017/2/Add.1−FCCC/SBI/2017/14/Add.1.
74
Ibid.
75
Ibid.
76
Ibid.
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid.
79
See https://www.unenvironment.org/resources/report/adaptation-gap-report-2017.
80
See Document AC/2017/11.
81
See TWN Bonn News Update 13: https://twnetwork.org/climate-change/developing-countries-raise-keyconcerns-subsidiary-body-implementation.
82
See http://unfccc.int/adaptation/workstreams/nairobi_work_programme/items/9201.php.
83
See
http://unfccc.int/adaptation/workstreams/nairobi_work_programme/items/5137.php.
84
See Document FCCC/SBSTA/2018/2 at https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/02_1.pdf.
85
See draft conclusions: FCCC/SBSTA/2018/L.8.
86
Ibid.
87
See Document AC/2017/11.
88
See Call for submissions at
http://unfccc.int/adaptation/groups_committees/adaptation_committee/items/10005.php.
89
Ibid.
90
Ibid.
91
Ibid.
92
Ibid.

48 Research Papers

93

Ibid.
Ibid.
95
Ibid.
96
Ibid.
97
See the Summary of the Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows 2016.
98
See The Adaptation Fund at a Crossroads (Heinrich Böll Stiftung North America and the European
Capacity Building Initiative (ecbi)).
99
See Document FCCC/CP/2016/2.
100
Ibid.
101
“Sustainable Development, Energy and Climate Change” (Chapter 5),Economic Survey of India 2018
(Volume 2).
102
See
https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/water/meetings/Water.and.Climate/first.meet/PEW_Adaptation.p
df.
103
Ibid.
94

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 49

SOUTH CENTRE RESEARCH PAPERS
No.

Date

Title

Author1

November 2005

Overview of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures in QUAD Countries on TropicalFruits and Vegetables Imported from
Developing Countries

Ellen Pay

2

November 2005

Remunerating Commodity Producers in
Developing Countries: Regulating
Concentration in Commodity Markets

Samuel G. Asfaha

3

November 2005

Supply-Side Measures for Raising Low
Farm-gate Prices of Tropical Beverage
Commodities

Peter Robbins

4

November 2005

The Potential Impacts of Nano-Scale
Technologies on Commodity Markets: The
Implications for Commodity Dependent
Developing Countries

ETC Group

5

March 2006

Rethinking Policy Options for Export
Earnings

Jayant Parimal

6

April 2006

Considering Gender and the WTO Services
Negotiations

Meg Jones

7

July 2006

Reinventing UNCTAD

Boutros Boutros-Ghali

8

August 2006

IP Rights Under Investment Agreements:
The TRIPS-plus Implications for
Enforcement and Protection of Public
Interest

Ermias Tekeste Biadgleng

9

January 2007

A Development Analysis of the Proposed
WIPO Treaty on the Protection of
Broadcasting and Cablecasting
Organizations

Viviana Munoz Tellez
and Andrew Chege
Waitara10

November 2006

Market Power, Price Formation and Primary
Commodities

Thomas Lines

11

March 2007

Development at Crossroads: The Economic
Partnership Agreement Negotiations with
Eastern and Southern African Countries on
Trade in Services

Clare Akamanzi

12

June 2007

Changes in the Governance of Global Value
Chains of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables:
Opportunities and Challenges for Producers
in Sub-Saharan Africa

Temu A.E and N.W
Marwa

13

August 2007

Towards a Digital Agenda for Developing
Countries

Dalindyebo Shabalala

14

December 2007

Analysis of the Role of South-South
Cooperation to Promote Governance onIntellectual Property Rights andDevelopment

Ermias Tekeste Biadgleng

15

January 2008

The Changing Structure and Governance ofIntellectual Property Enforcement

Ermias Tekeste Biadgleng
and Viviana Munoz
Tellez16

January 2008

Liberalization of Trade in Health Services:
Balancing Mode 4 Interests with
Obligations to Provide Universal Access to
Basic Services

Joy Kategekwa

50 Research Papers
17

July 2008

Unity in Diversity: Governance Adaptationin Multilateral Trade Institutions ThroughSouth-South Coalition-Building

Vicente Paolo B. Yu III

18

December 2008

Patent Counts as Indicators of theGeography of Innovation Activities:
Problems and Perspectives

Xuan Li

19

December 2008

WCO SECURE: Lessons Learnt from theAbortion of the TRIPS-plus-plus IP
Enforcement Initiative

Xuan Li20

May 2009

Industrialisation and Industrial Policy inAfrica: Is it a Policy Priority?

Darlan F. Marti and Ivan
Ssenkubuge

21

June 2009

IPR Misuse: The Core Issue in Standards
and Patents

Xuan Li and Baisheng An

22

July 2009

Policy Space for Domestic Public Interest
Measures Under TRIPS

Henning Grosse Ruse –
Khan

23

June 2009

Developing Biotechnology Innovations
Through Traditional Knowledge

Sufian Jusoh24

May 2009

Policy Response to the Global Financial
Crisis: Key Issues for Developing Countries

Yılmaz Akyüz

25

October 2009

The Gap Between Commitments and
Implementation: Assessing the Complianceby Annex I Parties with their Commitments
Under the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol

Vicente Paolo Yu III

26

April 2010

Global Economic Prospects: The Recession
May Be Over But Where Next?

Yılmaz Akyüz

27

April 2010

Export Dependence and Sustainability of
Growth in China and the East Asian
Production Network

Yılmaz Akyüz

28

May 2010

The Impact of the Global Economic Crisison Industrial Development of Least
Developed Countries

Report Prepared by theSouth Centre29

May 2010

The Climate and Trade Relation: Some
IssuesMartin Khor30

May 2010

Analysis of the Doha Negotiations and the
Functioning of the World Trade
Organization

Martin Khor

31

July 2010

Legal Analysis of Services and Investmentin the CARIFORUM-EC EPA: Lessons for
Other Developing Countries

Jane Kelsey

32

November 2010

Why the IMF and the International
Monetary System Need More than Cosmetic
ReformYılmaz Akyüz

33

November 2010

The Equitable Sharing of Atmospheric andDevelopment Space: Some Critical Aspects

Martin Khor

34

November 2010

Addressing Climate Change throughSustainable Development and thePromotion of Human Rights

Margreet Wewerinke andVicente Paolo Yu III

35

January 2011

The Right to Health and Medicines: The
Case of Recent Negotiations on the Global
Strategy on Public Health, Innovation andIntellectual Property

Germán Velásquez

36

March 2011

The Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit

Gurdial Singh Nijar

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 51
Sharing of Genetic Resources: Analysis and
Implementation Options for Developing
Countries
37

March 2011

Capital Flows to Developing Countries in a
Historical Perspective: Will the Current
Boom End with a Bust?

Yılmaz Akyüz

38

May 2011

The MDGs Beyond 2015

Deepak Nayyar

39

May 2011

Operationalizing the UNFCCC Finance
Mechanism

Matthew Stilwell40

July 2011

Risks and Uses of the Green Economy
Concept in the Context of Sustainable
Development, Poverty and Equity

Martin Khor

41

September 2011

Pharmaceutical Innovation, Incremental
Patenting and Compulsory Licensing

Carlos M. Correa

42

December 2011

Rethinking Global Health: A Binding
Convention for R&D for Pharmaceutical
Products

Germán Velásquez and
Xavier Seuba

43

March 2012

Mechanisms for International Cooperation
in Research and Development: Lessons for
the Context of Climate Change

Carlos M. Correa

44

March 2012

The Staggering Rise of the South?

Yılmaz Akyüz

45

April 2012

Climate Change, Technology andIntellectual Property Rights: Context andRecent Negotiations

Martin Khor

46

July 2012

Asian Initiatives at Monetary and Financial
Integration: A Critical Review

Mah-Hui (Michael) Lim
and Joseph Anthony Y.
Lim

47

May 2013

Access to Medicines and Intellectual
Property: The Contribution of the World
Health Organization

Germán Velásquez

48

June 2013

Waving or Drowning: Developing
Countries After the Financial Crisis

Yılmaz Akyüz

49

January 2014

Public-Private Partnerships in Global
Health: Putting Business Before Health?

Germán Velásquez

50

February 2014

Crisis Mismanagement in the United Statesand Europe: Impact on Developing
Countries and Longer-term Consequences

Yılmaz Akyüz

51

July 2014

Obstacles to Development in the Global
Economic System

Manuel F. Montes

52

August 2014

Tackling the Proliferation of Patents: How
to Avoid Undue Limitations to Competition
and the Public Domain

Carlos M. Correa

53

September 2014

Regional Pooled Procurement of Medicines
in the East African Community

Nirmalya Syam

54

September 2014

Innovative Financing Mechanisms:
Potential Sources of Financing the WHO
Tobacco Convention

Deborah Ko Sy, Nirmalya
Syam and Germán
Velásquez

55

October 2014

Patent Protection for Plants: Legal Options
for Developing Countries

Carlos M. Correa

56

November 2014

The African Regional Intellectual Property
Organization (ARIPO) Protocol on Patents:

Sangeeta Shashikant

52 Research Papers
Implications for Access to Medicines
57

November 2014

Globalization, Export-Led Growth andInequality: The East Asian Story

Mah-Hui Lim

58

November 2014

Patent Examination and Legal Fictions:
How Rights Are Created on Feet of Clay

Carlos M. Correa

59

December 2014

Transition Period for TRIPS
Implementation for LDCs: Implications for
Local Production of Medicines in the East
African Community

Nirmalya Syam

60

January 2015

Internationalization of Finance andChanging Vulnerabilities in Emerging andDeveloping Economies

Yılmaz Akyüz

61

March 2015

Guidelines on Patentability and Access to
Medicines

Germán Velásquez

62

September 2015

Intellectual Property in the Trans-PacificPartnership: Increasing the Barriers for theAccess to Affordable Medicines

Carlos M. Correa

63

October 2015

Foreign Direct Investment, Investment
Agreements and Economic Development:
Myths and Realities

Yılmaz Akyüz

64

February 2016

Implementing Pro-Competitive Criteria for
the Examination of Pharmaceutical Patents

Carlos M. Correa

65

February 2016

The Rise of Investor-State Dispute
Settlement in the Extractive Sectors:
Challenges and Considerations for African
Countries

Kinda Mohamadieh andDaniel Uribe

66

March 2016

The Bolar Exception: Legislative Models
And Drafting Options

Carlos M. Correa

67

June 2016

Innovation and Global Intellectual Property
Regulatory Regimes: The Tension between
Protection and Access in Africa

Nirmalya Syam andViviana Muñoz Tellez

68

June 2016

Approaches to International Investment
Protection: Divergent Approaches between
the TPPA and Developing Countries’ Model
Investment Treaties

Kinda Mohamadieh andDaniel Uribe

69

July 2016

Intellectual Property and Access to Science

Carlos M. Correa

70

August 2016

Innovation and the Global Expansion ofIntellectual Property Rights: Unfulfilled
Promises

Carlos M. Correa

71

October 2016

Recovering Sovereignty Over Natural
Resources: The Cases of Bolivia andEcuadorHumberto Canpodonico

72

November 2016

Is the Right to Use Trademarks Mandated
by the TRIPS Agreement?

Carlos M. Correa

73

February 2017

Inequality, Financialization and Stagnation

Yılmaz Akyüz

74

February 2017

Mitigating the Regulatory Constraints
Imposed by Intellectual Property Rules
under Free Trade Agreements

Carlos M. Correa

75

March 2017

Implementing Farmers’ Rights Relating to
Seeds

Carlos M. Correa

76

May 2017

The Financial Crisis and the Global South:

Yılmaz Akyüz

History and Politics of Climate Change Adaptation at theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 53
Impact and Prospects
77

May 2017

Access to Hepatitis C Treatment: A Global
ProblemGermán Velásquez

78

July 2017

Intellectual Property, Public Health andAccess to Medicines in International
Organizations

Germán Velásquez

79

September 2017

Access to and Benefit-Sharing of Marine
Genetic Resources beyond National
Jurisdiction: Developing a New LegallyBinding Instrument

Carlos M. Correa

80

October 2017

The Commodity-Finance Nexus: Twin
Boom and Double Whammy

Yılmaz Akyüz

81

November 2017

Promoting Sustainable Development byAddressing the Impacts of Climate Change
Response Measures on Developing
Countries

Martin Khor, Manuel F.
Montes, Mariama
Williams, and Vicente
Paolo B. Yu III

82

November 2017

The International Debate on Generic
Medicines of Biological Origin

Germán Velásquez

83

November 2017

China’s Debt Problem and Rising Systemic
Risks: Impact of the global financial crisisand structural problems

Yuefen LI

84

February 2018

Playing with Financial Fire: A South
Perspective on the International Financial
SystemAndrew Cornford

85

Mayo de 2018

Acceso a medicamentos: experiencias con
licencias obligatorias y uso gubernamentalel caso de la Hepatitis C

Carlos M. Correa yGermán Velásquez

86

September 2018

US’ Section 301 Actions : Why They are
Illegitimate and Misguided

Aileen Kwa and Peter
Lunenborg

87

November 2018

Stemming ‘Commercial’ Illicit Financial
Flows & Developing Country Innovationsin the Global Tax Reform Agenda

Manuel F. Montes, Daniel
Uribe and Danish

88

November 2018

Assessment of South-South Cooperationand the Global Narrative on the Eve of
BAPA+40

Yuefen LI

Chemin du Champ d’Anier 17
PO Box 228, 1211 Geneva 19
Switzerland
Telephone: (41 22) 791 8050
Fax: (41 22) 798 8531
Email: south@southcentre.int
Website:http://www.southcentre.int
ISSN 1819-6926