* Any views expressed in this opinion piece are those of the author and not of Thomson Reuters Foundation.
The climate summit in Cancun resulted in the adoption of a comprehensive set of decisions addressing many aspects of the climate debate. It must be seen as a milestone on a long journey that, however, will be hard and dusty.
Among others, the Cancun Adaptation Framework was adopted. This basically marks an important intermediate step in the adaptation negotiations, which started in Bali in 2007 and which, during the Copenhagen climate summit, progressed more than many other building blocks of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) negotiations.
The Cancun Adaptation Framework covers a range of aspects, from principles guiding adaptation action to a list of activities that countries can undertake under this umbrella, from strengthening regional cooperation to inviting multiple stakeholders to contribute to the implementation of the framework.
During the negotiations in Cancun, it was basically those issues with a concrete operational relevance that were most controversial and absorbed most of the adaptation negotiating time. But negotiators arrived at some conclusions that can make a real difference.
For the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), it was decided to establish a process which assists them in their national adaptation planning processes, such as developing national adaptation plans or comprehensive climate change strategies, for example. Building on the experience of the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs), the UNFCCC will support least developed countries with preparation of guidelines and facilitation of exchanges of experience.
An Adaptation Committee was established which aims to ensure that adaptation is dealt with under the UNFCCC in a more focused and coherent manner, since so far it has been scattered over different processes.
There was a long struggle between developed and developing countries on the functions that should be pursued as well as on the question of whether such a committee would be the right approach to perform the functions. Only when negotiations went to the minister´s level could agreement be reached.
A highly controversial but crucial issue, in particular for small island states, has been the need to address loss and damage from impacts associated with climate change where adaptation is not possible. The Alliance of Small Island States has promoted an international mechanism to address loss and damage from extreme as well as from slow-onset events.
This was supposed to include insurance approaches as well as aspects of compensation and rehabilitation. In the end, negotiators agreed to elaborate a work programme on several issues connected to loss and damage, which, although less than had been demanded, must be seen as a decision clearly in favour of the most vulnerable countries.
The issue will be kept on the political agenda, even if it is only a first step towards serious action for a severe problem.
ADAPTING TO MITIGATION?
Furthermore, a key problem was solved which has long hindered serious action: the issue of adaptation to so-called "response measures". This means adaptation to the adverse effects of emission mitigation actions, such as OPEC countries gaining less revenue because developed countries reduce their oil consumption.
Unfortunately, the Convention connects both aspects - adaptation to climate change impacts and to response measures - in one article. Whenever there was an attempt to scale-up action on adaptation, Saudi Arabia and other countries demanded adaptation to response measures be included as well to compensate for economic losses because of changes in the use of fossil fuels in the North.
Of course it is unacceptable to put losses from a reduction in harmful activities on an equal footing with losses from the impacts of climate change. After Cancun, response measures are dealt with as part of mitigation efforts and not as part of adaptation.
Decisions made in Cancun will shape the debates in Durban, South Africa, where next year’s COP17 will take place in December. For example, the concrete tasks and the composition for the Adaptation Committee, as well as the LDC support process, will have to be worked out during 2011, with a view to getting an agreement at Durban to put them into action.
With regard to the work programme on loss and damage, it was agreed that negotiating parties and relevant organisations can make submissions by February 21 to the UNFCCC Secretariat on the elements to be included in the work programme, and this will be worked out further.
Of course, all this will in the end not be sufficient to save vulnerable countries and people if it is not underpinned by strong financial support from developed countries. Unfortunately, developing countries did not succeed with their demand that adaptation finance should come on top of already promised development aid.
The world´s largest carbon emitters, in particular developed countries, also need to step up their mitigation ambitions to effectively slow climate change.
The Cancun climate summit was only a little step forward, too small to effectively curb global warming. But it was better than no step forward. Still, there is much more to be done in 2011 and beyond.
Sven Harmeling is an advisor on climate and development issues for Germanwatch.
