18 years of UNFCCC negotiations

2 0 ye a r s o f n e g o t i a t i o n so n a d a p t a t i o n a t U N F C C C C O PsW H E N T H E U N F C C C WA S A D O P T E D I N 1 9 9 2, A DA P TAT I O N WA S L A RG E LY S E E N A S A N A F T E RT H O U G H T TO M I T I G AT I O N.I N R E C E N T Y E A R S, H O W E V E R, A DA P TAT I O N H A S B E C O M E A K E Y P I E C E O F T H E R E S P O N S E TO C L I M AT E C H A N G E.

1 / 4

The Convention was set with the ultimate objectiveto prevent dangerous

anthropogenic interferences with the climate system.

It was based on principlesof sustainable development,

precaution, polluter-pays, common but differentiated

responsibilities (equity)and economic efficiency.

State responsibility for adverse effects of climate

change was raised by AOSIS and vulnerable countries, but

political compromises prevented agreement about

the responsibility of impacts. Adaptation related issues

are mentioned in many key convention commitments

(e.g. article 4.4. on developed countries assisting most vulnerable countries in

meeting costs of adaptation; article 4.8 for insurance for

climate change loss and damage induced impacts).

Adaptation, however, will be long downplayed during

COPs and funding struggles happening parallel

to the UNFCCC.

Key decisions on a staged-approach to funding,

which will last until 2002.In practice, reduced funding

allocated for adaptation.

Representatives of AOSIS and African countries

renewed concern about their particular vulnerability and

the lack of technical and financial resources for

prevention and adaptation, and called on the GEF to play

an enabling role. Focus was mainly on observing the

impacts of climate change and assessing risksand vulnerabilities.

Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol set up an

adaptation fund basedon CER from CDM.

Small vulnerable countries obtained funding

for adaptation on the basisof allowing developed

countries to buy offsets from bigger developing countries.

Only few references to adaptation on the need to consider the issue and its

funding through CDM.

AOSIS keeps emphasizing their vulnerability to global warming and underscored the need to develop long

term approachesto adaptation in the

Convention’s context.

Discussion are growingon the need to establish

an adaptation fund,but disagreements on the type of fund, its funding

modalities and competences prevailed.

Further discussionson the establishment

of an adaptation fund.

Adaptation policy moves on to a phase of planning and

pilot implementation. NAPA's were set up. Adaptation

Fund, the Special Climate Change (SCC) Fund and the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Fund were created to

support technology transfer, adaptation projects and

other activities, taking into account national

communications or NAPAs, and other relevant

information providedby the applicant Party.

Developing countries called for greater focus on

adaptation, but disagreements arose on the

status of adaptation with regards to mitigation. Some

parties had a tendency to merge both issues, while

others claimed that mitigation and adaptation

are separate issues. Attempts to achieve a

balance between adaptation and mitigation did not

succeed. COP-8 is with COP-10 part of the so-called

"adaptation COPs".

China/G77 and AOSIS, concerned with the mixed

results of mitigation measures pushed for more

attention to adaptation needs. The COP stressed the need for developed countries

to provide detailed information on their

assistance to most vulnerable developing

country Parties in meeting costs of adaptation.

The Buenos Aires programme of Work on

Adaptation and Response Measures is established and aimed at enhancing capacity

at all levels to identify and understand impacts,

vulnerability and adaptation responses, and implementing practical, effective and high priority adaptation actions.

According to ENB: a new chapter in the negotiations. COP-8 is with COP-10 part

of the so-called"adaptation COPs".

Adverse effects of climate change on developing and least developed countries,

and several financial and budget-related issues,

including guidelines to the Global Environment Facility

(GEF) were addressed. Following the aftermath

of several extreme weather events (Katrina, EU

heatwaves, Australia's fires, droughts and floodings in Middle-income countries

(MICs)) put an end to a narrative of invulnerability

in developed countries, which started considering

their own adaptation needs. It is agreed that adaptation is

of high priority for all countries. The controversy on adaptation vs mitigation

is "closed". The debateis moving toward

adaptation funding.

Agreement on proceduresof the Adaptation Fund and “Nairobi Work Programme

on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate

Change” to assist all Parties to improve their

understanding and assessment of impacts,

vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, and make

informed decisions on practical adaptation actions

and measures (UNFCCC).

The Bali Conference marked a turning point in adaptation

policy towards scaling up implementation and

mainstreaming. One of the significant outcomes bringing together both adaptation and

finance was the decision to operationalize the Adaptation

Fund, which was set up to finance adaptation in developing countries.

The Fund had proven to be particularly delicate to

negotiate because, unlike other funds under the

UNFCCC, it is funded through a levy on CDM projectsin developing countries

and is therefore not dependent on donors.

Strengthening previous agreements and mechanisms

on adaptation. Adaptation Fund was launched under the

Kyoto Protocol, to be filled by a 2% levy on CERs sold

under the CDM. It was agreed that the Adaptation

Fund Board should have legal capacity to grant direct

access to developing countries.

The COP mentioned the Green Climate Fund,

established one year later in Cancun. Developed countries

agreed to support a goal of mobilizing US$100 billion a year by 2020 to address the

needs of developing countries to show they are

still engaged in the negotiation process, even

though this Copenhagen is seen as the COP of failed

ambitions.

The Green Climate Fund was formally established but not

agreed upon. A debate emerged about the transfer

of funding from development to adaptation. The loss and

damage approach gained visibility with the

establishment of a specific work program. Developed and developing countries

maintained divergent views on institutional mechanisms

and funding regarding loss and damage.

Agreement on Green Climate Fund Framework to provide

financing for action in developing countries via

thematic funding windows, including for adaptation.The Cancun Adaptation

Framework aims at enhancing actions on

adaptation through international cooperation,

and the creation of an Adaptation Committee.

Loss and damage concept formalized. Little progress

on Green Climate Fund. Controversies revolved on funding for adaptation and

loss and damage.

Loss and damage concept formalized. Little progress

on Green Climate Fund. Controversies revolved on funding for adaptation and

loss and damage.

The "Berlin Mandate" agreed on establishing a process to

negotiate strengthened commitments for developed

countries in order to meet the Convention's objective.

Quantified Emissions Limitation and Reduction

Objectives (QELROs)for different Parties and

an acceleration of the Berlin Mandate talks were

discussed. Need to favor flexibility and legally binding

mid-term targets was highlighted. focusing on

strengthening the financial mechanism, the development and transfer of technologies

and maintaining the momentum in relation to the Kyoto Protocol was adopted.

Geneva Ministerial Declaration notedbut not adopted.

Adoption of Kyoto Protocol setting Annex I and Annex B countries binding emission

reduction targets for the six major greenhouse gases for

2008-2012. Outlining of Kyoto mechanisms

(emissions trading, CDM, JI). Developing rules for

emissions trading and methodological work in relation to forest sinks

remain issues for future international consideration.

Failure to resolve unfinished Kyoto issues. The adoption of a 2-year “Buenos Aires Plan of Action” opened a process for finalizing the

rules and operational details of the Protocol. Focus is on strengthening the financial

mechanism, the development and transfer of technologies.

Resolution of technical issues with no major

agreements. Discussions focus on the adoption of the

guidelines for the preparation of national

communications by Annex I countries, capacity building, transfer of technology and

flexible mechanisms.

Debates on US proposalon including carbon sinks (forests and agriculture)

and on support for developing countries to meet

reductions. Rejection of compromise positions. Failure and collapse of negotiations on Bonn

agreements.

Bush administration's rejection of KP leading US

out of KP negotiations. Consensus reached on Bonn

agreements and decisions including capacity-building

for developing countries and countries with economies in

transition. Decisions on several issues, notably the

mechanisms land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) and

compliance, remained outstanding.

Completion of Buenos Aires Plan of Action. Concern

about meeting the conditions to bring the KP into force

after US withdrawal. Agreements reached on a

package deal (the Marrakech Accords) including

operational rules accounting procedures and compliance

regime, consideration of LULUCF Principles in reporting and limited

banking of units generated by sinks under the Clean

Development Mechanism (CDM) (the extent to which carbon dioxide absorbed by carbon sinks can be counted towards the Kyoto targets).

Russia's hesitation threatening the Protocol's

entry into force after US and Australia's withdrawal.

Discussion on adequacy of developing countries

commitments.Delhi work program on

Article 6 of the Convention. Need to build on the

outcomes of the World Summit highlighted.

Decisions on the institutions and procedures of the Kyoto

Protocol and on the imple-mentation of the UNFCCC

adopted. Agreement to review national reports

submitted by non-Annex I countries. Guidelines for

reporting emissions adopted on the basis of IPCC's good

practice guidance as a reliable foundation for

reporting on changes in carbon concentrations

resulting from land-use changes and forestry due to

2005. Marrakech package completed by agreement on modalities of CDM projects

on cabon-absorbing management. COP 9 is seen

as the "forest COP".

Discussion on the framing of a new dialogue on the future

of climate change policy. Emphasis is put on both

mitigation and adaptation. Decisions adopted on

LULUCF, funding mechanisms, adaptation response measures, and

UNFCCC Article 4 on education, training and

public awareness, examining the issues of adaptation and mitigation,the needs of least developed countries (LDCs).

Post-2012 discussions started.

First COP with the Protocol's entry into force.

Montreal Action Plan set the road for Post-2012

agreement.

COP focused on Africa, most vulnerable countries,

adaptation and capacity building. 5 year Nairobi Work Program adopted.

The Nairobi Framework will provide support for

developing countries in implementing CDM projects.

Adoption of rules of procedure of the Protocol's

compliance committee.

The Bali Road Map was adopted, opeining a two-year process towards a strength-ened international climate

change agreement, including the four pillars Bali Action

plan for post 2012 and emission reduction from

deforestation. AW-LCA to discuss the Conventions'

implementation post-2012 and AW-KP for furthering

commitments were created. Discussions put into

question the common but differentiated principle ona purely historical basis, as

regards actual responsibility for emissions, particularly

from BRICS.

Negotiating schedule for 2009 post-2012 agreement

intensified. Progress was made on a number of issues of particular importance to

developing countries, namely adaptation, finance,

technology and REDD.

Climate change policy spurs attendance at the COP of

highest number of heads of state since the beginning of the UNFCCC. Around 115

world leaders attended the high-level segment.

Post-2012 ambitious climate agreement objectives were,

however, not achieved. Instead it produced the

Copenhagen Accord, agreeing on the long-term

goal of limiting the maximum global average temperature increase to no more than 2

degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, subject

to a review in 2015. Reluctance to adopt binding

commitments became evident, setting a new “bottom up” approach

(opposite to the previous "top-down" approach). A

number of developing countries agreed to

communicate their efforts to limit greenhouse gas

emissions every two years.

Cancun Agreements were adopted. Parties agreed on

1990-levels as base line and on IPCC's projections as reference, setting the 2C

goal to limiting temperature rise above pre-industrial

levels. A technology mechanism to boost the

development and spread of new climate-friendly

technologies making fully operational by 2012.

With the Kyoto Protocol's first engagement period

coming to an end, Parties agreed a second commitment

period (2013-2020) and reached an agreement on

adopting a new binding agreement comprising all countries by 2015 to take

effect in 2020. Work begun under the Ad Hoc working

Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced

Action (ADP). A framework for the reporting of emission

reductions for both developed and developing countries was also agreed.

A timetable to adopt a new universal climate agreement

by 2015 was set out. Work under the Bali Action Plan was completed. New work towards a 2015 agreement

was concentrated under the ADP single negotiating

stream. The Doha Climate Gateway was adopted. It

included amended 2013-2020 commitments,

limited to 16% scope of global CO2 emissions.

Decisions adopted included further advancing the

Durban Platform, the Green Climate Fund and Long-Term

Finance, the Warsaw Framework for REDD+,

among other.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h i

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 4

Po z n a n

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

C a n c u n

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 8

D o h a

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

Co

ps

thro

ugh

yea

rsG

lob

al

issu

es d

iscu

ssed

Issu

es o

n a

da

pta

tio

n

D E S C R I P T I O N

In the following table we have an overview of negotiations per COPs and information about global and adaptation issues discussed.

MAPPERS:Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou, SciencesPoKari De Pryck, SciencesPoMartina Elisa Cecchi, Density DesignNicolas Baya-Laffite, SciencesPo

EMAPSEMAPS (Electronic Maps to Assist Public Science) is a collborative research project funded by the European Research Council to map controversies around climate change adaptation.For more info please visit http://www.emapsproject.com/blog/objectives.

Paolo Ciuccarelli, Density DesignRichard Rodgers, UvATommaso Venturini, SciencesPo




0

0

1 0 0

2 0 0

3 0 0

4 0 0

5 0 0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

%

Co

ps

thro

ugh

yea

rs

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h i

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 4

Po z n a n

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

C a n c u n

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 8

D o h a

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

Katrinahurricane.

Recognition of AR2 finding on discernible human influence

over climate system.Controversies on evidencefor attribution will follow.

President Bush removes US

from KP. AR3 published.

Johannesburg World Summiton Sustainabledevelopment.

Firm agreement on evidence of the reality and the origin

of climate change will emerge in the AR4. IPCC received

Peace Nobel Prize.

Perry et al report claims UNFCCC's

estimations fall short on costsof adaptation.

Climategate, IPCC controversies

growing distrustin climate science.

Philippines typhoon. Scientists warn actions are insufficient to meet

the 2C goal.

Typhoon Haiyan, said to be the strongest to

hit Phillipines AR5WG1 was published.

Subprimes crises.

2 0 ye a r s o f n e g o t i a t i o n so n a d a p t a t i o n a t U N F C C C C O PsT h e d y n a m i c s o f a d a p t a t i o n c o m m i t m e n t s v i s u a l i s e d t h r o u g h U N F C C C d o c u m e n t s , E N B n e g o t i a t i o nr e p o r t s , C F U f u n d i n g s a n d w o r l d w i d e eve n t s

2 / 4

L E G E N D

U n k n o w n

S u b - S a h a ra n A f r i c a

M i d d l e E a s t a n d N o r t h A f r i c a

L a t i n A m e r i c a a n d t h e C a r i b b e a n

G l o b a l

E u r o p e a n d C e n t ra l A s i a

A s i a a n d Pa c i fi c

S c i e n t i fi c eve n t s

Po l i t i c a l eve n t s

N a t u ra l eve n t s

E N B o n a d a p t a t i o n

mill $


Hereunder, the relative importance of all adaptation related issues

in the Earth Negotiation Bulletins (ENB). It shows adaptation that if

adaptation is present in the negotiations since the beginning, it only

starts assuming greater attention since COP5 (1999) pushed by

most vulnerable countries. Attention falls in The Hague (2000) with

the controversy on US proposals on sinks, but only to rise again since

2000, reaching a maximum at New Delhi (2002) and remaining very

high until Nairobi (2006). Firmly established, adaptation becomes

less urgent, especially as the post-Kyoto debate rises.

A timeline of related worldwide scientific, political and natural

events which happened during the 20 years of negotiations is

displayed, along with a histogram of fundings received each year in

different geographical zones for “adaptation” projects as catalogued

by the Climate Funds Update. This histogram shows the growing

volume of the adaptation finance, starting from 2003/04 with the

operationalisation of the first multilateral funds for adaptation. The

decrease observed in 2013 may depend on an incomplete data

collection for this year. Looking at how the financing from the

multilateral funds is divided among different regional areas, it is

possible to observe the clear predominance of sub-saharan Africa

and Asian and Pacific regions.

M E T H O D S

The graph shows the visibility in each Conference of Parties (COPs)

of the 22 most active countries in the UNFCCC negotiations.

The visibility of each country is measured as the number of

paragraphs of the ENB in which the name of the country appears.

This choice is dictated by the fact that paragraphs represent the

thematic unity of the ENB (in most cases, each paragraph is devoted

to one and only one subject).

In the graph, each country is represented by a stream the size

of which is proportional to the number of paragraphs in which

the country is mentioned, and the position of which depends

on the relative visibility of the country in each of the COPs (e.g.

the U.S. is the first country in the first column because it is the

country most often mentioned in the New York conference).

Hurricane Sandy hit NY in October, just

before the COP; Typhoon Bopha hit Philippines during

the COP, said tobe the strongest.




L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City

M E T E R O F T H ED I S C U S S I O NTotal numberof paragraphsin the UNFCCCdocuments

TO P I C ’ SI M P O RTA N C ENumber of topic’smentions in the paragraphsranked in decreasingorder COP by COP

Topic #1

Topic #1

Topic #1Topic #2

Topic #2

Topic #2Topic #3

Topic #3

Topic #3

2 0 ye a r s o f n e g o t i a t i o n so n a d a p t a t i o n a t U N F C C C C O PsE vo l u t i o n o f t h e d i f f e r e n t t h e m e s d i s c u s s e d d u r i n g e a c h C O P s i n E N B n e g o t i a t i o n r e p o r t s

3 / 4

M E T H O D S

The graph shows the visibility in each Conference Of Parties (COPs)

of the 12 major topic of the negotiation. Each theme is defined by a

dictionary of several expressions that have been automatically and

manually extracted from the text of the ENB. The expressions are

grouped to form themes on the basis of their tendency to co-occur

together in the same paragraphs.

The visibility of each theme is measured as the number of

paragraphs of the ENB in which at least two of the expression

defining the theme appear. This choice is dictated by the fact that

paragraphs represent the thematic unity of the ENB (in most cases,

each paragraph is devoted to one and only one subject).

In the graph, each theme is represented by a stream the size of

which is proportional to the number of paragraphs in which the

theme is mentioned, and the position of which depends on the

relative visibility of the theme in each of the COPs (e.g. “Adaptation

Funding and equity” is the first theme in the first column because is

the theme most often mentioned in the New York conference).

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h i

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i C O P 1 4

Po z n a n

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

C a n c u n

C O P 1 7

D u r b a nC O P 1 8

D o h a

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

Energy + technology transfer

Models and IPCC

Transport sector

Adaptation funding & equity

GHGs & emission measures

Land use & forests

Vulnerability + adaptation action

Kyoto protocol

Social & environmental impacts

Compliance enforcement

CDM + carbon offsets

Post-Kyoto and Redd


Models and IPCC

Transport sector



Land use & forests



Kyoto protocol




Models and IPCC

Transport sector



Land use & forests



Kyoto protocol



Redd + post-Kyoto


Transport sector



Land use & forests



Kyoto protocol



Redd + post-Kyoto

Models and IPCC




2 0 ye a r s o f n e g o t i a t i o n so n a d a p t a t i o n a t U N F C C C C O PsE vo l u t i o n o f c o u n t r y p a r t e c i p a t i o n s d u r i n g e a c h C O P s i n E N B n e g o t i a t i o n r e p o r t s

4 / 4

L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City


C O U N T R Y ’ SAC T I V I T Y I NT H E D I S C U S S I O NNumber of country’smentions in the paragraphsranked in decreasingorder COP by COP

Country #1

Country #1

Country #1Country #2

Country #2


Country #3

Country #3


The diagram shows the number of intervention in the negotiations of

the 21 most active countries of the UNFCCC debate (as reported in

the Earth Negotiation Bulletin). The size of the flow is proportional

to the number of paragraphs of the ENB reports in which the name

of each of the top 21 countries is mentioned. The data are calculated

COP by COP. The flows are ranked by the number of mentions (the

highest flow for each COP correspond to the country most active in

that COP, the lowest the least active country). The diagram shows a

remarkable stability. Most countries tends to maintain their relative

rank throughout the 19 COPs. There are however a few notable

exceptions that we’ll see in the next graph.

M E T H O D S

The graph shows the visibility in each Conference of Parties (COPs)

of the 22 most active countries in the UNFCCC negotiations. The

visibility of each country is measured as the number of paragraphs

of the ENB in which the name of the country appears. This choice is

dictated by the fact that paragraphs represent the thematic unity of

the ENB (in most cases, each paragraph is devoted to one and

only one subject).

In the graph, each country is represented by a stream the size

of which is proportional to the number of paragraphs in which the

country is mentioned, and the position of which depends on the

relative visibility of the country in each of the COPs (e.g. the U.S.

is the first country in the first column because it is the country

most often mentioned in the New York conference).

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 1 4

Po z n a n C O P 1 8

D o h aUnited States

United States

United States

United States

China

China

China

China

Europe

Europe

Europe

Europe

Philippines

Australia

Australia

Australia AustraliaJapan

Japan

Japan

Germany

Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia

Canada

Canada

Canada

Kuwait

India

India

Tavalu

Tavalu

New Zealand

New ZealandNew Zealand

New Zealand

Russian Federation

Switzerland

Switzerland

Switzerland

Mexico

Mexico

Philippines

Philippines

Kuwait

Brazil

Brazil

Brazil Brazil

Argentina

Argentina

Argentina

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

Mexico

Mexico

India

India

Kuwait

Philippines

Philippines

Bolivia

Bolivia

Norway

Norway

Norway

Norway

South Africa

Mexico

Bolivia

BoliviaTavalu

Bolivia

Bolivia

Russian Federation

Russian Federation

Argentina

Kuwait

Kuwait

Germany

Russian Federation

South Africa

South Africa

South Africa

Germany

Germany

Switzerland

Japan

Canada

Saudi Arabia

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h iC O P 1 6

C a n c u n




L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Topic #1

Topic #1

Topic #1Topic #2

Topic #2

Topic #2Topic #3

Topic #3

Topic #3


3 / 4


The place of vulnerability and adaptation policy as a focus

negotiations in the UNFCCC has clearly evolved over the COPs.

Whereas it was present but not at the core of negotiations in the

early COPs focused on reaching an agreement on a binding

framework to reduce GHGs emissions leading to the 1997 Kyoto

Protocol (KP) and its flexible mechanisms, the issue constantly grew

from Marrakech (2000) to Buenos Aires (2004). The “COPs of

adaptation”, New Delhi (2002) and Buenos Aires (2004) will enshrine

the recognition that vulnerability and adaptation measures are a

mainstream issue in the UNFCCC process, leading through Montreal

(2005) and Nairobi (2006) to the end of the controversy on

adaptation vs. mitigation.

This became evident in the 2007 Bali’s four pillars including

adaptation, alongside with mitigation, technology transfer and

finance in a shared vision for long-term cooperative action. Since

Poznan, adaptation action falls as a focus of attention and concern.

On the one hand, the Copenhagen failure reconfigured priorities for

the following COPs, focused on the definition of a new post-2012

universal Protocol for reducing emissions. On the other hand, the

recent COPs saw the growth of debates on funding, as well as the

increasing importance of social justice dimensions of climate change

around the loss and damage concept.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h i

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i C O P 1 4

Po z n a n

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

C a n c u n

C O P 1 7


D o h a

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n


Kyoto protocol




Post-Kyoto and Redd



Kyoto protocol



Transport sector



Kyoto protocol



Redd + post-Kyoto



Kyoto protocol



Redd + post-Kyoto




L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Topic #1

Topic #1

Topic #1Topic #2

Topic #2

Topic #2Topic #3

Topic #3

Topic #3


3 / 4


Adaptation and equity related issues have always been high on the

negotiations agenda. But not always at the same degree. Developed

countries’ responsibility for adverse effects of climate change was a

major issue during the early negotiations on the Convention (before

1995). If political compromises will downplay adaptation and focus will

be limited to assessing climate change impacts and country vulnerability

during the first COPs, vulnerable countries bargain strategy will manage

to include adaptation funding provisions in the Kyoto Protocol (1995).

Debates about the mechanisms to ensure this, reached critical levels at

Hague COP (2000), with strong disagreements on the type of fund, its

funding modalities and competences. With growing concern about the

Parties’ ability to meet the main convention’s objective (mitigation),

vulnerability, impacts and adaptation action and funding debates

constantly grew from Marrakech (2000) to Bali (2007), becoming since

then a mainstream issue. The New Delhi (2002) and Buenos Aires

(2004) COPs will thus be known as the “COPs of adaptation”. In the

aftermath of several extreme weather events, Montreal (2005) marked

the end of the narrative of invulnerability in developed countries, and

with it, the controversy on adaptation vs mitigation was "closed".

Discussions moved since Nairobi (2006) toward the operationalisation

of funds. with growing evidence on climate change. Since then, and

specially after the Copenhagen failure, the the agenda was reconfigured

by to raising issues of concern and debate during the following COPs :

the definition of a new post-2012 universal Protocol for reducing

emissions, the growing recognition of the social dimensions of climate

change impacts, and the progressive enshrinement of the loss and

damage approach.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h i

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i C O P 1 4

Po z n a n

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

C a n c u n

C O P 1 7


D o h a

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n




Post-Kyoto and Redd







Redd + post-Kyoto




Redd + post-Kyoto




L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Topic #1

Topic #1

Topic #1Topic #2

Topic #2

Topic #2Topic #3

Topic #3

Topic #3


3 / 4


While both adaptation and mitigation are core elements of the

UNFCCC, mitigation has had priority on the agenda from the beginning

of the UNFCCC negotiations. Talks started in Berlin (1995) with the aim

of reaching an agreement on a binding framework to reduce GHGs

emissions, which culminated with the adoption of the 1997 Kyoto

Protocol (KP) and its flexible mechanism. Since then the issue

of emission mitigation was less discussed within the UNFCCC arena

and adaptation gained visibility. Debate mostly evolved around technical

and practical questions regarding the operationalization of the

agreement.Three events bring back mitigation to a certain level of

attention: the US refusal to ratify the Protocol (Bonn 20 01) Russia’s

hesitation to enter the KP after US and Australia's withdrawal (New

Delhi 2003); and its entering into force following the 55th country

ratification (Montreal 2005). Since The Hague (2004) debates on US

proposal to include carbon sinks (forests and agriculture) as well as on

support for developing countries to meet reductions became the major

issue. In this context, the mechanisms land-use change and forestry

(LULUCF), CDM projects, and compliance will raise strong debates.

Buenos Aires (2004) and Bali (2007) COP will see agreement

and progressive stabilisation of issues pertaining to technology transfer

or fuel emission reductions, CDM and forestry management projects

and the constant rise of REDD and post-Kyoto debates.

Since Copenhangen, mitigation is definitely back to the front issues

with the expiration of the KP and a renewed concern on energyand

technology transfer.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h i

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i C O P 1 4

Po z n a n

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

C a n c u n

C O P 1 7


D o h a

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

Land use & forests

Kyoto protocol



Post-Kyoto and Redd


Land use & forests


Kyoto protocol


Land use & forests


Kyoto protocol


Redd + post-Kyoto

Land use & forests


Kyoto protocol


Redd + post-Kyoto





4 / 4

L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Country #1

Country #1


Country #2


Country #3

Country #3


Observing the map it is possible to observe the rise of the

Philippines and Bolivia, two countries of the South of the Word

who has take more and more of importance in the latest COPs.

In particular, Bolivia (who never ranked very very high in the first

15 COPs) has a dramatic rise in visibility starting from COP16

in Cancun where it takes the lead on the question of ‘loss and

damage’ and REDD. The trajectory of the Philippines is also very

interesting. Starting very high in the first COPs (4th place in New

York INC11 and 6th place in Berlin COP1), the Philippines lose

visibility in the following COPs, but regains the 4th position in Doha

COP18 and Warsaw COP19.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 1 4


D o h a

Philippines

Philippines

Philippines

Philippines

Philippines

Bolivia

Bolivia

Bolivia

Bolivia

Bolivia

Bolivia

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 0 8


C a n c u n





4 / 4

L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Country #1

Country #1


Country #2


Country #3

Country #3


A few countries have punctual spikes in visibility in some specific

COPs. Mexico scores relatively low for most of the negotiations,

but jumps to the 5th position in the COP16 that it hosted in Cancun.

Even more interesting is the trajectory of Tuvalu. Starting from the

Kyoto COP3, the tiny pacific island has entered and remained in the

top20 of the most visible countries of UNFCCC (which is in itself

a remarkable results). But Tuvalu reaches the 13th position in

Poznan COP14, the 9th position in Copenhague COP15 and 12th

in Cancun COP16. Argentina has a particularly discontinuous

trajectories, peaking in the top10 in COP4 Buenos Aires (9th

position), COP10 Buenos Aires (7th position) and COP17 Durban

(8th position).

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 1 4


D o h a

United States

China

Tavalu

Tavalu

Mexico

Mexico

Argentina

Argentina

Argentina

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

Tavalu

Argentina

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 0 8


C a n c u n

Tavalu





4 / 4

L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Country #1

Country #1


Country #2


Country #3

Country #3


Observing the diagram it is possible to observe the disengagement

of the Canada from the climate negotiations. Scoring very high

in the first COPs (starting from Berlin COP1, Canada remains in the

top 6 until Bali COP13), Canada falls suddenly starting from COP14

Poznan in 2008. It is worth to remember that in 2006 Canada

changed its Prime Minister (with Stephen Harper entering

into office) and that in 2011 Canada left the Kyoto Protocol.

A steep decline can be observed also for Germany after COP2

Geneva, but it this declined is explained by the increasing

importance of the European Community as the entity

representing all European nations in negotiations.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 1 4


D o h a

Germany

Canada

Canada

Canada

Germany

Germany

Germany

Canada

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 0 8


C a n c u n





4 / 4

L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Country #1

Country #1


Country #2


Country #3

Country #3


The top 10 of the most active countries is stably occupied by a small

group of countries: United States, China, Europe, Australia, Japan.

In particular China never score lower than 3rd position; Europe

never below the 4th position and Unites States never below

the 6th position.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 1 4


D o h aUnited States

United States

United States

United States

China

China

China

China

Europe

Europe

Europe

Europe

Philippines

Australia

Australia

Australia AustraliaJapan

Japan

Japan

Japan

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 0 8


C a n c u n

Documents

18 years of UNFCCC negotiations