Negotiating Climate Change Adaptation: The Common Position of the Group of 77 and China

This book discusses the history of the Group of 77 and China’s negotiating position on adaptation to climate change in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It also addresses a number of questions that have arisen, such as: What was the process for constructing a collective position of the G77 and China on adaptation? Why is it worthwhile to negotiate in a group of such dimensions? What are the incentives for reaching the broadest common position on adaptation? What is the role of the leading coordinators, and how is this linked to the rotating annual Presidency of the G77 and China? And, how do the subgroups of the G77 participate in reaching this general position? 

Written by former and current adaptation negotiators from developing countries, the book offers various perspectives from the subgroups and leading coordinators of the G77 and China as well as other organizations. Furthermore, in contrast to previous analyses on climate change negotiations, which focus mainly on the behaviour or position of one group, it presents a unique approach based on the strength of collectivism in the G77 and China. 

The book appeals to practitioners and professionals as well as scientists in climate change management and policy, impacts and adaptation, international relations, as well as diplomacy and development. 

• Language: English
• Publisher: Springer
• Release date: Apr 23, 2020
• ISBN: 9783030410216

Book preview

Part IIntroduction

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

M. d. P. Bueno Rubial, L. Siegele (eds.)Negotiating Climate Change AdaptationSpringer Climatehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41021-6_1

1. Introduction

María del Pilar Bueno Rubial¹   and Linda Siegele²  

(1)

National Council for Scientific and Technical Research of Argentina (CONICET), Universidad Nacional de Rosario, Rosario, Argentina

(2)

University College London, London, UK

María del Pilar Bueno Rubial

Email: [e-mail]

Linda Siegele (Corresponding author)

Email: [e-mail]

The purpose of this book is to highlight the history of the negotiating position of the Group of 77 and China (G77 and China) on adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change in the context of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or Convention). Some of the questions that arise and that this work seeks to answer are:

What was the process for constructing a collective position of the G77 and China on adaptation?

Why is it worthwhile to negotiate in a group of such dimensions?

What are the incentives for reaching the broadest common position on adaptation?

What is the role of the lead coordinators on adaptation for the G77 and China, and how is this linked to the revolving annual Presidency of the G77 and China?

How do the subgroups of the G77 and China participate in reaching this general position?

The exceptional nature of the G77 and China’s common position on adaptation can be described in many ways. We have identified the following main characteristics:

A. Its relative autonomy from the leadership changes of the subgroups, as well as the Presidency and the coordination of the G77 and China itself, provides evidence that there are constructed ideas and concepts that are inherited and strengthened by developing country Parties over time.

B. The position has not been weakened by the diversity among the subgroups in the G77 and China.

C. The existence of a causal relationship between the position of the G77 and China on adaptation and outcomes in the UNFCCC negotiating process, to the extent that the issue was leveraged by developing country Parties to strengthen their overall position under the Convention and increase the self-confidence of the G77 and China to continue to make progress.

D. The adaptation position is the only position of the G77 and China that constitutes the broadest set of common interests. Considering the difficulties in reaching a common position, when all developing country subgroups take ownership of an issue, the common position of the G77 and China becomes stronger than the original positions of the subgroups. This is an example of the whole being more than the sum of its parts.

This book is structured as follows: this introduction; two main sections; and a conclusion. In the introduction, the editors familiarize the reader with the subject of adaptation to climate change, including the structural questions, ideas, and overarching concepts critical to the formation of a collective position.

In the first substantive section of the book, the main developing country subgroups that comprise the G77 and China provide their own perspective of historical and current efforts toward developing a common position on climate change adaptation. These subgroups include

Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay (ABU);

African Group of Negotiators (AGN);

Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS);

Independent Association of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC);

Least Developed Countries (LDC); and

Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC).

In the second section of the book, a number of the lead coordinators on adaptation for the G77 and China from 2010 to 2018 provide the inside story of the adaptation negotiations during the periods they led the collective effort of developing a common position on adaptation. In one case, the editors have provided a collection of insights gathered during interviews with various past lead coordinators.

The final section of the book reflects on the overarching issues drawn out in the individual chapters, as well as the methodologies employed by the different subgroups in the negotiating process. It also provides a look at the way forward for adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change under the Convention and the Paris Agreement, and the potential role of the G77 and China in guiding progress.

One of the primary assets of this book is that it is written by former and current adaptation negotiators from developing countries. Furthermore, and in contrast to previous analyses in the literature on climate change negotiations, which are focused mainly on the behavior or positioning of one group, this book provides a unique approach based on the strength of collectivism in the G77 and China.

Part IIBuilding a Developing Country Position on Adapting to Climate Change in the UNFCCC: The Sub-groups of the G77 and China

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

M. d. P. Bueno Rubial, L. Siegele (eds.)Negotiating Climate Change AdaptationSpringer Climatehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41021-6_2

2. Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay (A-B-U)

Ignacio Lorenzo Arana¹  

(1)

Ministry of Housing, Land Planning and Environment of Uruguay, Montevideo, Uruguay

Ignacio Lorenzo Arana

Abstract

This chapter focuses on the adaptation related work of the most recently created negotiation group comprised of Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay (A-B-U) in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In particular, the chapter seeks to illustrate the group’s creation and the approach taken by the group in the area of adaptation negotiations under the UNFCCC, as well as to illustrate the author’s perspective on the relevance and urgency of adaptation action in the Latin–American region. In addition to the origins of the A-B-U group, the chapter highlights the main positions presented by the group from 2016 at the initiation of the negotiation of the Paris Agreement official outcome to 2018 when it was adopted at the 24th Conference of the Parties (COP 24) held in Katowice, Poland. The narrative also reflects how A-B-U has developed its positions constructively within the Group of 77 (G77) and China as a way of building and strengthening consensus on adaptation among developing countries, which are most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.

Keywords

AdaptationClimate changeNegotiationsArgentinaBrazil–Uruguay

The views expressed in this chapter are solely those of the author and are not intended to represent any official position of the A-B-U group or of any of the organizations to which the author is currently related or has been related in the past.

The author wishes to express a great deal of appreciation to Dr. Pilar Bueno for her support and substantive and detailed written input during the preparation of this chapter.

Ignacio Lorenzo Arana

Director of Climate Change in the Ministry of Housing, Land Planning and Environment of Uruguay, President of the Coordination Board of the National Climate Change Response System of Uruguay, A-B-U Coordinator for Adaptation negotiations at the UNFCCC, Uruguay’s Focal Point to the UNFCCC and Alternate Member of the Board of the Green Climate Fund representing GRULAC, since October 2016. Ignacio has also acted as Head of Delegation of Uruguay in the UNFCCC negotiations in several sessions and as Adaptation and Loss and Damage Thematic Coordinator for the G77 and China, between December 2015 and November 2016. Ignacio holds a full professional degree in Architecture from Universidad de la República and is currently in a Masters’ degree program on Public Policy at Universidad Católica del Uruguay. He is also Assistant Professor in Urban Economics at Universidad de la República. Ignacio has acted as an expert advisor and consultant on climate change adaptation for public and international organizations such as AECID, CAF, IADB, and UNDP.

Introduction

The UNFCCC negotiating group formed by Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay, known as A-B-U, is a recent collaboration of South American countries with substantial common backgrounds, interests and positions in several aspects of the multilateral agenda, including on key issues of the UNFCCC, and not less relevant their membership in MERCOSUR.

It is interesting to reflect that the creation and work of A-B-U in the UNFCCC context started on adaptation issues and later the thematic scope was extended to cover all of the agenda items of the Ad hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA) and most of the relevant agenda items under the Paris Agreement Work Program (PAWP).

This chapter focuses on the relevance of A-B-U in the UNFCCC negotiations from 2016 to 2018, understanding that the positions forged by the group on adaptation were conceived from a perspective of building consensus in the G77 and China, in order to deliver a stronger adaptation outcome for all developing countries. A-B-U’s approach relied on the idea that cooperation within the framework of the G77 and China allowed it to advocate more effectively for an issue of interest to all developing countries and whose evolution in the UNFCCC is inevitably tied to their stage of development.

Adaptation in the Context of Developing Countries, for the Latin–American Region, and in Relation to the Means of Implementation

Adaptation is an urgent priority for developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, since even if the temperature goal in the Paris Agreement of "holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels" is achieved, adaptation action will be needed increasingly—as even a 1.5 ° or 2 °C degree world brings with it huge impacts on humanity’s well-being and the health of ecosystems across the globe.

Developing countries will continue to be most impacted, and within these countries the poor and most vulnerable will suffer the greatest losses. From a regional perspective, the author has defended the idea of adaptation being a key strategic aspect of the sustainable development agenda for the Latin-American region.

The Latin-American region is significantly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in terms of its population, with the starkest socio-economic inequality worldwide, and more than four-fifths of its urban populations being located in climate risky contexts, such as flood or mud-slide prone areas, being exposed to climate-related vector-borne diseases or dependent on glaciers for drinking water, among other climate exposures. Beyond the main issue of its vulnerable population, the main economic drivers and economic sectors of the region are highly vulnerable to climate change as well, including food production, tourism, renewable energy (of which the region has the highest share in the world) or ecosystem-related value chains.

After years of climate negotiations where most UNFCCC decisions and key UNFCCC processes focused mainly on mitigation, adaptation slowly became more visible and gained a higher profile—most notably with the adoption of the Cancun Adaptation Framework, an all-encompassing process initiated to bring balance between mitigation and adaptation, including clear references to parity of support in terms of the means of implementation: finance, technology transfer, and capacity building. The provision of means of implementation for adaptation action in developing countries was the overall balancer in the negotiation of the Paris Agreement and will be key to the actual implementation of adaptation action in the context of the broad scope of nationally determined contributions (NDCs).

In this regard, the adaptation finance gap, which the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) included in the fourth edition of its Report on the Adaptation Gap in 2018 states that annual adaptation costs will vary from USD140 to 300 billion in 2030 and from USD280 to 500 billion in 2050 (UNEP 2018). These costs must be recognized in the context of the level of adaptation action required in developing countries, as a contribution to global climate action. It is also clear that current financing (and other means of implementation) for adaptation is insufficient and that developed countries will have to accelerate the provision of new and additional means of implementation, as agreed in the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.

The Financial Mechanism of the Convention has been essential to facilitating climate action in developing countries; however, the Mechanism still only covers the minimum of the resources required to cover adaptation needs in developing countries, and furthermore, there remains a significant disparity between the finance provided for adaptation and for mitigation. This disproportionate allocation between the two occurs, even within the Green Climate Fund, which aims to deliver finance for mitigation and adaptation in a 50:50 ratio, but where currently the ratio is 63% for mitigation and 37% for adaptation of approved projects, in nominal terms (GCF IEU 2019).

The Origins of the A-B-U Group in Relation to the Climate Change Adaptation Negotiations

A-B-U’s contribution to the international climate change negotiations has been very recent in the history of the UNFCCC, but at the same time its participation has been intense and focused in the context of negotiations from Paris (2015) to Katowice (2018), where adaptation became a fundamental issue for maintaining overall balance in the negotiations aimed at developing the rules for implementing the Paris Agreement.

The initial interactions between the three countries on the possibility of delivering, as a group, on adaptation issues under APA agenda item 4, took place informally at the end of the 43rd session of the Subsidary Bodies (SBs) of the UNFCCC in Bonn, in May 2016. That session was particularly complex since it took almost a week to conclude the debate on the adoption of the APA agenda, due mainly to the issue of the scope of negotiations on the guidance to NDCs, where the balance between mitigation and adaptation in the upcoming negotiations was at stake. The process of adopting the APA agenda resulted in a common dialogue and informal collaboration among the three countries: Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay.

Although the three countries saw adaptation as having a key role in the APA agenda, initially not all Parties shared that view; in particular some developed country Parties. The informal conversations among the three countries led to the identification of adaptation as a strategic agenda item, in particular around the development of further guidance for the adaptation communication provided for in Articles 7.10 and 7.11 of the Paris Agreement. This additional agenda item provided a solution for achieving consensus and approval of the APA agenda as a balanced package.

The inclusion of an adaptation agenda item in the work of the APA was a high-level political decision since there was no mandate in decision 1/CP.21 for doing so. However, it was clear that there were open issues that required guidance before being able to fully implement Article 7 and that further guidance on the adaptation communication could provide the needed balance by complementing the matter of providing further guidance for the mitigation component of the NDC (APA agenda item 3).

It is important also to recognize that in addition to there being no mandate for adaptation issues to be discussed under the APA, the wording of the agenda item itself prioritized the NDC vehicle for the Adaptation Communication, foregoing the mention of other vehicles explicit in the language of Article 7.11: "as a component of or in conjunction with other communications or documents, including a national adaptation plan, …, and/or a national communication. This fact created delicate boundaries in the adaptation negotiations, especially in relation to the issue of overall and/or vehicle-specific" guidance, which in time, proved very complex during the negotiations, including when building and maintaining consensus within the G77 and China.

It could be said that the origins of A-B-U were directly connected to the conversations and efforts of the three countries to provide technical inputs to the adaptation negotiations on the road to agreeing the rules for implementing the Paris Agreement. As a result, and after consultations at different political levels, the three countries agreed to take the opportunity to submit views on adaptation, in particular on APA agenda item 4 further guidance in relation to the adaptation communication, including, inter alia, as a component of nationally determined contributions, referred to in Article 7, paragraphs 10 and 11, of the Paris Agreement in September 2016.¹

The submission established a framework of principles and an explanation of the importance of adaptation in light of the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. In the principles section, it included: common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities; equity; political parity between mitigation and adaptation; vulnerability of developing countries to the adverse effects of climate change; the need for means of implementation to strengthen climate action; the role of science; and the country-driven nature of