Can adaptation be part of every nation’s pledges?

Image thanks to IISD

Only two years young in climate negotiations, an alliance of Latin American countries is aiming big. The six-country strong alliance of middle income latino nations known as AILAC has taken control, sketching their ideal scenarios on how the climate negotiations must move forward.

The group is called AILAC, a Spanish acronym for Alianza Independiente de Latinoamérica y el Caribe (Independent Alliance of Latin American and the Caribbean) has been busily put forward four submission papers in the past year –proposals on how things must work at the old UNFCCC. And they’re certainly ticking all the boxes.

One of their goals for Lima is making adaptation a fundamental principle on the pledged each country will make toward a greener future (intended nationally determined contributions INDC), one that can’t be removed or overlooked. Many things must happen for that to occur, including bridging the differences between the extremes, both among developing countries and within the global theatre. But between AILAC members - Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panamá, Colombia, Peru and Chile - it looks like this powerhouse team is set to make this happen.

AILAC’s current president, Costa Rica’s Giovanna Valverde Stark, spoke with Adopt a Negotiator from her office in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in San José. An economist with an MBA, a Masters in Microfinance and a diploma on Italian Literature, she took on the presidency in July and has embedded it with an intellectual flair before she hands it over to Guatemala next January.

However, her biggest task yet awaits in Lima.

What have been the past semester been for you as president of AILAC?

For the past six months, we have focused on communicating among each other and presenting submission papers. We have had weekly meetings and a very competent specialized unit, with experts on mitigation, adaptation, ADP… Our work with the submission papers helped us raise our visibility. We presented one on the architecture of the agreement, another one on INDC, and another on adaptation along with Mexico. This last one has helped positioning the topic during the negotiations. You must remember that most developed countries focus on mitigation more than adaptation, but the truth is we are all doing it now, no matter what we do regarding mitigation toward the 2020 goal. When this started, 22 years ago, no one imagined where this would lead us. Along with Mexico, AILAC has been insisting on this submission in every meeting and round, with positive results.

Tell me about how this submission has been received.

We presented the submission paper on adaptation in June, but during the October rounds we pressed upon it. Most developing countries agree with us, because adaptation and finance is crucial. It’s important because even though every country has to do something, but we should also work on our National Adaptation Plans. In Costa Rica we are currently working on our INDC. For instance, with Namas: how much will they cost, how will we pay that, how much is needed. On adaptation, we are working on a National Adaptation Plan, and making a revision on which areas of the country are the most vulnerable. What happens is, many of the most vulnerable countries (including the LDCs, the African Group and the islands) are saying: don’t talk about adaptation to us, either we adapt or we die, so we don’t want to have it as an obligation. In October we had 12 bilateral meetings with pretty much everyone: the Likeminded, the African Group, USA, Caricom, Alba, Brazil, the European Union… We want to know what is bothering each side and why some countries see having adaptation in the INDC as a burden. We found mutual grounds with Aosis and Caricom, because AILAC position is glass-clear: if we don’t make use of the INDC to position the three topics on a same level (mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation), then we fear adaptation and means of implementation might not be sufficiently financed and consolidated.

What’s the role AILAC is playing now?

We are being the intermediates, building bridges between the extremes. Within the G77 we try to bring people together, while closing the gaps between the G77 and the Annex 1 countries. That’s why we met with developed countries akin to our objectives, say NOAK for instance. We can find important allies over there. Same goes for the European Union. Picture this: we made all this noise in October, insisting that adaptation should be on the same level as mitigation, that the EU later came to us saying we were being a bit unflexible. To that I said, this is not about being flexible or not, but about this: if you want to remove adaption from the INDC, tell me where can we put it so it isn’t lost in the way.

INDC should be delivered next year, how is the world ready for it?

What we know is that we must deliver the INDC by next semester, in which every country agrees to reduce emission. We say: this is great, but let’s also include the National Adaptation Plan and how much will this cost. Something else we also made clear is that the scheduling for each one is different. For instance, take Costa Rica’s Namas. We have made progress and we know how much it would take to finish them, at least it’s very clear to me with the coffee and livestock Namas. On adaptation, we are proposing countries should have their NAP ready by 2020. I believe it should be open from next year on, in case a country like Costa Rica wants to list the costs for both mitigation and adaptation. What the islands say is they won’t be ready to submit their adaptation for the INDC, next year. I believe they surely have the readiest adaptation plans. In October we had 12 bilateral meetings with pretty much everyone: the Likeminded, the African Group, USA, Caricom, Alba, Brazil, the European Union… We want to know what is bothering each side and why some countries see having adaptation in the INDC as a burden. We found mutual grounds with Aosis and Caricom, because AILAC position is glass-clear: if we don’t make us of the INDC to position the three topics on a same level (mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation), then we fear adaptation and means of implementation might not be sufficiently financed and consolidated.

Why is now the time for this and what’s the rol AILAC has been playing on the climate negotiations?

We are being the intermediates, building bridges between the extremes. Within the G77 we try to bring people together, while closing the gaps between the G77 and the Annex 1 countries. That’s why we met with developed countries akin to our objectives, say NOAK for instance. We can find important allies over there. Same goes for the European Union. Picture this: we made all this noise in October, insisting that adaptation should be on the same level as mitigation, that the EU later came to us saying we were being a bit inflexible. To that I said, this is not about being flexible or not, but about this: if you want to remove adaption from the INDC, tell me where can we put it so it isn’t lost in the way.

Which would be Costa Rica’s and AILAC’s priorities for this COP?

We are trying to get our messages across in every level, but the spaces to do so are through submissions papers (we have already done 4) we constantly intervene in the Plenary, but people don’t always listen or understand our position in those spaces. So most of our work is done in the corridors and bilateral reunions. It will be hard, because developed countries argue they can’t provide any more finance because governments change and long-term finance is a big commitment. They we say back: well, you pledged in Copenhagen. How come it was possible back then?

—

AILAC has its chance to shine. With Peru playing host and natural leaders like participatory-led Chile and carbon-neutral-to-be Costa Rica, the alliance can play a key role in the negotiations. How these six countries alter the course of negotiations is still to be seen (if anything) but eye-brows are being raised and big moves are being made. They have already been influential in their recommendations on the design of a 2015 agreement, including mechanisms to support adaptation and increase pre-2020 ambition across the negotiating table.

So the question must be asked; Could they be the ones to break the deadlock in Lima?