The 17th Exchange Series

Topic: Adaptation Communication

Dear friends and colleagues,

 

Greetings to all!

 

Since the Paris Agreement (PA), we have been raising various issues on adaptation through the Exchange Series. Article 7.1 of the Paris Agreement mentions that the Global Goal on Adaptation of “enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response in the context of the temperature goal referred to in Article 2 (i.e., 1.5 and 2 Deg.C)”. Under Article 7, the PA asks the Parties to communicate (Article 7.10) about their adaptation priorities, implementation and support needs, and plans and actions. Adaptation communication should be transparent, comparable, recognisable by the UNFCCC and other stakeholders, and at the same time should not add undue burden to the Parties. Unlike mitigation, which could be quantified using single indicator, equivalent CO2 emission or sinks, taking stock of adaptation is not as straightforward and often has to rely on qualitative indicators. A flexible approach is desirable but at the same time relaxing on the criteria could put a question mark on the effectiveness and reliability of adaptation communication. Without reliable adaptation communication, individual efforts by the Parties could remain unrecognised, and ultimately be detrimental for attracting potential adaptation financing and support.

 

Adaptation communication is at the core of assessing the progress made on adaptation ambitions of the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and for ratcheting-up of the ambition levels on adaptation and eventually feeding into the overall progress on the Global Adaptation Goal through periodic global stocktaking. Against this backdrop, this exchange series would like to float following questions for your input and discussion:

 

(1) What are the existing mechanisms for adaptation communication at the local, national and regional levels and the gaps to be filled? Please provide sources of information you are aware of as well as the role of regional platforms, such as the Asia Pacific Adaptation Network (APAN), development partners, knowledge networks and think tanks to complement adaptation communication that individual countries might find difficult to implement on their own.

 

(2) How could we devise a middle path for creating a flexible yet reliable adaptation communication process so that each Party’s unique circumstances and adaptation efforts at different levels could be duly recognised? Please provide the kind of information that could/should be avoided or those which should not be missed during national communications. You may also propose a tentative roadmap or framework to set up adaptation communication in a phased manner. Should we aim for a single/common guideline, country-specific guideline or both, synergies between adaptation and mitigation, etc.?

 

(3) What should be the potential uses of adaptation communication for advancing the level of effort to enhance national adaptive capacity, increasing resilience and reducing vulnerability? Please share your insights on how adaptation communication could be used to streamline the available support on adaptation as well as improving the effectiveness of adaptation finance.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Dr. Peter N. King
Senior Policy Advisor
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
Regional Centre

 

Dr. Binaya Raj Shivakoti
Senior Water and Adaptation Specialist
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)
Headquarters