no surrender to climate chaos: what happened and where ......the un climate talks: climate change,...

CARE Climate Change

No surrender to climate chaos:What happened and where next after the UN ‘COP19’ climate talks in Warsaw?

The UN climate talks: climate change, poverty and CARE

This year’s UN climate talks in Warsaw, Poland, took place against a backdrop of extreme weather events, including Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines and recent dire warnings from scientists about the growing scale and pace of climate change. It’s clearer than ever that climate change is happening now, that human activity is overwhelmingly responsible for causing it and that, as yet, the world is not doing enough to tackle this urgent and growing problem.People living in poverty around the world are already bearing the brunt of climate change impacts. The images from Tacloban and Ormoc, and other regions hit by Typhoon Haiyan, are a stark reminder that unless urgent action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions and support the planet’s most vulnerable people to adapt to climatic variation

and change, CARE’s vision of a world where poverty has been overcome and people live in dignity and security is at serious and growing risk.

Already, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and increasingly extreme and erratic weather events are undermining development and trapping people in a permanent state of emergency. Perversely, the world’s poorest who have done the least to cause climate change are also bearing its highest costs. This situation represents a grave and growing social injustice that requires urgent and concerted action, particularly on the part of rich nations who have the greatest historical responsibility for producing the emissions that drive climate change.

As an organisation that fights injustice everywhere, CARE is increasingly framing its climate change work around the concepts and approaches of climate justice. This approach

“Climate change is the most fundamental challenge of our time. Governments must act

urgently to limit global warming and to help their citizens cope with its impacts. The risks of

inaction, for the world’s poorest and for us all, are far too great to ignore. This is literally a

matter of life and death on an unprecedented scale. Failure to act is not an option.”

Robert Glasser, Secretary General, CARE International

No surrender to climate chaos: What happened and where next after the UN ‘COP19’ climate talks in Warsaw?2

aims to ensure that solutions to the climate crisis place the needs and rights of the world’s poorest people front and centre and that those most responsible for causing this injustice are held accountable.

Alongside the importance of domestic action and engaging in other international negotiation processes, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) remains a critical forum to tackle the climate crisis, help create a more climate-just world and ensure governments, in particular from the richest and most powerful countries, take more urgent and ambitious steps to tackle the climate crisis.

CARE’s key demands for COP19

In advance of this year’s UN climate talks in Warsaw

(also known as the annual meeting of the Conference

of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Conven-

tion on Climate Change, or ‘COP19’), CARE outlined its

key demands in an expectations paper ‘No excuse for

inaction’. CARE’s demands included urging governments

to ramp up overall ambition and political progress to

tackle climate change; enhanced money and resources

for adaptation; a mechanism to deal with the loss and

damage already resulting from climate change impacts;

additional climate finance; more gender-equitable climate

action; and improved recognition of and support for

smallholder farmers and their critical role in global

agriculture and food security. CARE believes these are

all crucial elements of any new global climate agreement

that adequately addresses the needs of the world’s poorest

and most vulnerable people.

1. TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE: Is the world any closer tolimiting global warming and avoiding climate catastrophe for the planet’s poorest people?

Unless the world succeeds in limiting the growing scale

and pace of global warming, the impacts of climate

change will overwhelm efforts to ensure the poorest and

most vulnerable people can cope with and adapt to the

consequences of a warming planet. Scientists warn that,

even with a temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius

above pre-industrial levels, the agreed upper limit of

warming endorsed by all governments, serious and wide-

spread climate impacts will unfold. Ideally, global warm-

ing should be limited to 1.5 degrees, or 1 degree or less

if possible, according to scientists.i Nonetheless, there

is still a glaring gap between the agreed goal of limiting

warming to 2 degrees and the level of collective action

governments have promised to deliver to ensure this

happens before 2020. However, no concrete progress to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions was achieved in Warsaw.

• Not one country came forward with increased pledges to further reduce their emissions.

• Australia and Japan announced they were back-tracking on previous commitments to reduce their emissions. This led to a great deal of frustration

and disappointment and was seen as obstructive,

both by other governments and civil society. It also

enabled other countries that are intent on rolling

back on previous commitments to hide behind

Australia and Japan. The fact that countries are now

backtracking on previous commitments to reduce

emissions also reinforces the contradiction between

the seriousness of the science and the lack of political

action to tackle climate change.

• There were no new announcements of national mitigation actions (policies and actions countries

undertake as part of their commitment to reduce

emissions) from advanced developing countries. A

number of advanced developing countries are yet to

make any pledges at all.

• There was no agreement to call for accelerated phasing-out of harmful gases such as HFCs.

• There was no agreement to call for the promotion of renewable energy and energy efficiency.

UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres addresses delegates at the UN ’COP19’ climate talks. © Courtesy of Piotr Drabik / flickr.com / creative commons.

http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/No_Excuse_for_Inaction-CAREs_demands_for_UN_climate_talks_in_Warsaw.pdf

http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/No_Excuse_for_Inaction-CAREs_demands_for_UN_climate_talks_in_Warsaw.pdf

No surrender to climate chaos: What happened and where next after the UN ‘COP19’ climate talks in Warsaw? 3

Some technical progress was made in terms of monitoring,

reporting and verifying countries’ mitigation actions,

both in developed and developing countries. However,

technical progress in these areas does not yet constitute

concrete progress to reduce emissions. According to

recent analysis by Climate Action Tracker, current low

levels of action to reduce emissions put the world on

a pathway to 3.7 degrees of average global warming

by the end of this century. According to CAT, current

political developments now constitute “a major risk of

a further downward spiral in ambition, a retreat from

action, and a re-carbonisation of the energy system led

by the use of coal”.ii

If governments, and particularly developed country

governments, do not start to seriously confront this

continued lack of action, the global community will

collectively fail to comply with the key objective of the

UNFCCC, which is to avoid dangerous climate change.

In short, there is still no clear signal that governments

will scale up the urgently needed action to reduce emissions

anytime soon. Instead, the world is heading for climate

chaos, with average global temperature increases of 3.7

degrees or more now increasingly possible.

2. THE NEW CLIMATE DEAL:Do we have a roadmap leading to a new, fair, ambitious and binding climate change deal in 2015?

The world urgently needs a new climate agreement that

ensures global warming can be limited to as far below 2

degrees Celsius as possible and which provides adequate

support for poorer countries and their citizens to adapt

to climate change and develop in a sustainable manner.

Only with this new deal will CARE’s vision of a climate-

just world, where people are able to lift themselves

from poverty, be realised. At COP17 in Durban in 2011,

governments agreed to develop this comprehensive new

agreement by 2015. It is envisaged to come into force

no later than 2020.

After highly sensitive and controversial negotiations in

the final hours of COP19, governments did reach limited

agreement on a decision under the Durban Platform for

Enhanced Action (ADP), which provides the essence of a

roadmap leading to 2015. Specifically:

Scenes of devastation in Tacloban, the Philippines - one of the areas worst affected by Typhoon Haiyan. © Sandra Bulling/CARE.


• The next session of the ADP will take place in March 2014 in Bonn. The session will be used to

begin elaborating draft negotiating text in advance

of a new climate agreement in 2015.

• With regard to mitigation, it has been agreed that a)

the ADP will intensify its examination of ‘mitigation

actions with high potential’ (actions that will help

to dramatically reduce global greenhouse gas emis-

sions) b) that the ADP will identify, by COP20 in

Peru in 2014, the information governments will

need to provide when putting forward their emissions

reductions contributions and c) that so-called

‘intended nationally determined contributions’ –

mitigation pledges for the period beyond 2020 –

should be put on the table by the first quarter of 2015.

• Developing countries insist that, if they are to provide such information, they will need support to do so. As a result, developed countries and insti-

tutions were asked to support developing countries

to generate information needed to help determine

their mitigation contributions.

These outcomes, although positive in small part, still

lag behind what many of the most vulnerable and some

of the more progressive developed countries and groups

of countries (such as the EU) are looking for. In fact,

the steps taken in Warsaw now risk locking-in low-level

emissions reductions pledges and fail to avert dangerous

levels of climate change. The main shortfall is that the

decisions taken fail to include a clear ‘review mechanism’.

This is important because once initial pledges for future

mitigation actions are put on the table, they will need

to be collectively reviewed and scaled up if they are not

sufficient to keep global warming to below 2 degrees.

3. CLIMATE FINANCE:Have developed countriesprogressed on their promises to deliver USD 100bn of climate finance by 2020, and is USD 100bn enough?

Developed countries are legally obliged to provide financial

and other support to poorer countries that are least

responsible for causing the greenhouse gas emissions

that drive climate change. Therefore, the provision of

adequate and effective climate finance is of utmost

importance to successfully tackle the causes and con-

sequences of climate change and ensure a climate-just

world for the planet’s poorest and most vulnerable people.

COP19 was touted as a ‘finance COP’, a label said to have

been thought up by the Polish presidency.iii Finance was

undoubtedly a key issue on the agenda, and govern-

ments ultimately took nine decisions with direct links to

finance. However, these were mainly procedural.

• Progress was reached with regards to the opera-tionalisation of the Green Climate Fund. Ambitious

and significant finance pledges are still required as

soon as possible. It is expected that the heads of

state and government summit on climate change,

to be held in New York by UN Secretary General Ban

Ki-moon in September 2014, will be a key political

moment.iv

• Governments agreed to a continuous high-level process with twice-yearly ministerial level meetings

on climate finance and regular reports to be provided

by developed countries on strategies and approaches

for scaling-up climate finance.v

• The Standing Committee on Finance has also been

tasked with further work.vi

In spite of these decisions, the ‘finance COP’ did not

result in any substantial new money for climate action.

There is still a serious lack of clarity when it comes to

assessing progress made towards the previously agreed

USD 100bn per year by 2020 for developing countries.

These funds are needed to ensure that adaptation and

mitigation needs in developing countries can be addressed

as the planet warms. Scaling up action in future to meet

the needs of a rapidly warming world will undoubtedly

require far more than USD 100bn per year. If the contin-

ued lack of climate finance is not addressed, successful

negotiations towards a new climate agreement are at

serious risk.

There is also limited clarity about how much of the USD

100bn is comprised of private finance, how much is in

addition to past pledges, and how much is being diverted

from previously pledged development aid. There are

serious concerns that many developed country governments

are now pursuing a ‘counting exercise’ and are in effect

counting all and any funds – including private finance –

5No surrender to climate chaos: What happened and where next after the UN ‘COP19’ climate talks in Warsaw?

towards the USD 100bn goal. Given the focus on private

finance during Warsaw, particularly by countries such as

the US, and COP19 host Poland, the risk that this is

already happening is more than likely.

Of course, mobilising private sector finance, and ensuring

that investments from the private sector are channelled

into low-emission and climate-resilient development, is

crucial. But it is unlikely that the world’s poorest and

most vulnerable people will benefit sufficiently from

such action. Indeed, they may even be harmed by some

of these investments. Additionally, if part of the USD

100bn is taken from previous commitments to Official

Development Assistance (ODA), there is a serious risk

that aid could be diverted from poverty reduction projects

and invested in climate-related initiatives. Finally, the

scale of the climate change challenge should dictate

that the USD 100bn is taken from public sources of

money and that finance should be raised in addition to

existing aid and development commitments. Overall, far

more ambitious action is needed on climate finance

to ensure the correct signal is sent to developing countries;

namely that adequate and effective investment in climate

action is crucial.

4. ADAPTATION FINANCE:Have developed countriesincreased the finance neededto protect the world’s mostvulnerable people from climate change impacts?

In CARE’s view, there is a clear moral and legal obligation

to scale-up financial support to developing countries so

they can assist the poorest and most vulnerable people

to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. While

adaptation finance has increased in recent years, albeit

slowly, the level of support provided by developed countries

still lags far behind the estimated costs of adapting to

climate change in developing countries. The need to

adapt to climatic variation and change also puts ad-

ditional financial burdens on people living in poverty

who are often least able to cope with additional shocks

and stresses.

With regard to scaling up adaptation finance, little

progress was made in Warsaw.

Poland’s national stadium, the venue for the UN ‘COP19’ climate talks. © Courtesy of Cecilia Schubert, CCFAS / flickr.com / creative commons.


• A number of developed countries, such as the UK, Germany and Denmark signalled the levels of finance they will provide to developing countries in the next 1-2 years, and the UK announced it will aim to ensure 50% of its finance is spent on adaptation.

• Some developed countries also committed addi-tional finance to a) the Adaptation Fund, so it can meet its fundraising goal and fund more concrete adaptation projects (Germany, Switzerland, France, Norway, Finland) and b) the Least Developed Countries Fund (most notably the UK).vii

• Adaptation finance has also been strengthened in a decision on long-term finance, which can be interpreted as a commitment to ensure a balance between mitigation and adaptation finance.

However, these decisions still fail to provide any clarity on the share of adaptation finance within the USD 100bn commitment on climate finance. The potential impact of a new workstream on loss and damage on the avail-ability of adaptation finance is also unknown and will hopefully be clarified as the new Warsaw mechanism on loss and damage (see question 6) is put into place

between now and 2016.

5. ADAPTATION:Did COP19 make any progress to help developing countries adapt to climate change?

In addition to scaled up finance, and an urgent need

to reduce and mitigate global emissions, the world’s

most vulnerable countries also require adequate support

structures to help them cope with and adapt to the

impacts of climate change. Although governments have

taken a number of important decisions in recent years

to build up supporting adaptation ‘architecture’ within

the UNFCCC, there is still a great deal of work to do. Key

decisions taken in Warsaw were mainly of a procedural

nature, so there has been little concrete progress.

• Countries decided to continue with the existing Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (NWP) and gave it a substantive

and enhanced mandate which includes developing

stronger links with other relevant processes under

the Convention.viii Governments specifically invited

the Adaptation Committee to provide further

recommendations for activities under the NWP.

Ecosystems, human settlements, water resources

and health were identified as key issues for further

consideration in the second phase of the work

programme. Concrete timelines for elaborating further

activities and reviewing the work programme were

also put in place.

• National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) aim to provide

Least Developed Countries (LDCs) which are

particularly vulnerable to climate change with

effective, long-term planning tools. If these NAPs

are well designed, and place special emphasis on

the needs of the most vulnerable members of society

in individual countries, they have the potential to

become important tools to help reduce people’s

vulnerability to climate change. The preparation of

these NAPs is now underway. At COP18 in Doha in

2012, governments decided to push the review of

the NAP technical guidelines to COP20 in Peru in

2014.ix Governments were also asked for submissions

(by 26 March 2014) to explain how they are using

the NAP guidelines. This data will be considered

during the June 2014 Subsidiary Bodies’ session in

Bonn. In the same decision, governments also

acknowledged the establishment of a global support

program by UN agencies to help LDCs develop NAPs.

• COP19 acknowledged the work of the Adaptation Committee, the primary body under the UNFCCC on

adaptation, and asked it to organise a special

adaptation event during the June 2014 negotiation

session and also “reiterate(d) its encouragement”

to governments to provide funds to the AC to continue

its work. Its 2014 work plan includes work on

In Papallacta, Ecuador, traditional agricultural knowledge is failing due tounpredictable and more intense wind, frost and cold. CARE is trainingwomen farmers to adapt by protecting their crops from insects and frost.Credit: © Silvia Vallejo/CARE.


traditional and indigenous adaptation approaches,

work related to NAPs for non-LDCs, preparation of

recommendations related to monitoring and evalu-

ation, and the preparation of the 2014 thematic

report on tools and knowledge available and lessons

learnt in adaptation.

• With regard to the role of adaptation in the ADP

negotiations towards the 2015 climate agreement,

governments agreed to build the future framework

on the existing institutions and their recommendations,

but generated little progress on additional ideas.

More in-depth consideration will be needed in 2014

with regards to how best to scale up adaptation in the

2015 agreement, with finance playing a key role.

Overall, there is still a substantial amount of technical

work to be addressed in 2014, although COP20 will likely

result in more substantial outcomes with regard to

adaptation than those agreed at COP19. How to address

adaptation in the 2015 agreement to ensure it has a

meaningful role, including the development of NAPs and

substantial recommendations from the Adaptation

Committee, remains a key task in 2014.

6. LOSS AND DAMAGE:Have countries started toseriously address the issue of loss and damage from climate change impacts?

Based on current mitigation pledges, the world is now

on a pathway towards dangerous climate change where

adaptation limits will be more than exceeded. However,

Typhoon Haiyan also showed that even in a country like

the Philippines, which is investing heavily in adaptation

and disaster risk reduction measures, extreme weather

events can still cause massive loss of life and damage

to infrastructure, assets and livelihoods. This backdrop

contributed to making loss and damage one of the top-level

issues at COP19. CARE, along with other civil society

organisations, has lobbied strongly for the establishment

of an international mechanism to address loss and damage,

given the harsh reality facing people living in poverty as

the planet warms, and the failure of developed countries

in particular to live up to their historic responsibilities

to take bold action on mitigation and climate finance.x

Akuluga (right) and Allmatu Fasemni from Ghana’s East Mamprusi District are getting ready to plant their fields using conservation agriculture techniques. They are using bonding and embankments to prevent flooding and flood damage to crops. © 2009/CARE.

http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/tackling_the_climate_reality.pdf

http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/tackling_the_climate_reality.pdf


After two weeks of intense technical and political nego-

tiations, governments agreed to establish the ‘Warsaw

international mechanism on loss and damage associated

with climate change impacts.’ This decision signals that

loss and damage is now a genuine process under the

UNFCCC and there is now a very real third dimension of

climate change above and beyond mitigation and adap-

tation; loss and damage. The decision followed a united

stand by the developing country group G77 and China,

which published an extensive proposal for a loss and

damage mechanism ahead of COP19.xi

Although it’s a good start, the substance of the agreement

to establish a loss and damage mechanism still delivers

the bare minimum deemed acceptable by developing

countries.

• Governments established a separate but inter-

linked workstream on loss and damage with its

own governance structure (an executive committee

of the mechanism)xii.

• The loss and damage decision kick-starts the

process needed to further elaborate on the

mechanism and includes an interesting interim

composition (made up of members of existing

negotiation bodies such as the Adaptation Committee,

the Least Developed Countries Expert Group and

others) and has been afforded high-level support in

its early phases (the first meeting of the executive

committee is to be convened by the COP presidency

and the UNFCCC Executive Secretary in March 2014).

• The coming year will focus on the negotiation

of permanent modalities and the composition of

the mechanism, and includes a two-year work plan

to be agreed by COP20.

• Many questions about the exact nature and role

of the mechanism are yet to be addressed and

will need further elaboration including with regard

to more contentious issues such as permanent losses,

insurance, redress and historical responsibilities.

Indeed, many of the discussions amongst negotiators

in Warsaw are likely to be brought back to the table

for further negotiation in subsequent sessions.

• The set up of the loss and damage mechanism,

including its relationship to the Cancún Adaptation

Framework, will be reviewed by COP22 in 2016.

The establishment of the mechanism is nonetheless a

sad win for vulnerable developing countries after several

years of controversial negotiations. It acknowledges the

new climate reality of adverse impacts where mitiga-

tion and adaptation are no longer sufficient. Indeed, the

fact that countries and communities are now sustaining

increasing loss and damage underlines that mitiga-

tion and adaptation measures must be pursued with

even greater urgency and ambition. However, the new

mechanism does not yet provide any tools to generate

finance for specific activities linked to loss and damage

such as rehabilitation or redress. The task in 2014 is to

make the mechanism operational and ensure it succeeds

in addressing key problems developing countries are

already facing. It remains to be seen if and how vulner-

able developing countries choose to address the issue of

loss and damage, and associated justice and responsi-

bility questions, in the next phase of the negotiations

towards the 2015 agreement under the ADP, given that

the mechanism has now been established and will be

reviewed after 2015.

7. GENDER EQUALITY:What progress has been made to ensure climate action is gender equitable?

CARE’s work shows how climate change exacerbates the

risks facing vulnerable people who are already margin-

alised by the inequitable distribution of resources and

denial of rights. Policy and institutional responses to

Trees lie submerged after Typhoon Haiyan struck the Philippines in November 2013 © Peter Caton/CARE.


climate change including adaptation, mitigation, climate

finance, agriculture and loss and damage must therefore

explicitly address social inequality, and gender inequality

in particular, as one of its most persistent forms.

Strengthening the voice of excluded, underrepresented

and less powerful groups and tackling the underrep-

resentation of vulnerable women and girls in the gov-

ernance systems of climate-related decision-making

processes is therefore one important element towards

securing a more comprehensive, gender-equitable

approach to tackling climate change.

Following COP18’s landmark ‘gender decision’, COP19

convened the first in-session workshop on gender and

for the first time made gender balance (equal represen-

tation of women and men) in the negotiations, as well

as gender-sensitive climate change policy, a standing item

on the UNFCCC agenda. The issue of gender equality

has become much more visible and is now afforded

greater recognition in the climate change negotiations

than previously. That said, there is still considerable

need for this recognition to be translated into a shared

understanding of what gender equality actually means,

and the resources (financial, technical) and action

needed to make it a reality in the context of climate

change. In particular, action needs to go beyond merely

enhancing the number of female delegates in the global

climate policy process.

COP19 did not deliver the clear Gender Action Plan

demanded by the Global Gender and Climate Alliance

(GGCA), a call that CARE as a member of GGCA explicitly

supported. However, the Annex to the final COP19 outcome

does include most of the main recommendations issued

by the gender workshopxiii which provides several

hooks and provisions as opportunities to take this

work forward and ensure stronger commitments

around COP20.xiv Furthermore, the integration of gender

has moved forward through 1) including gender as a cri-

terion in the 5th Review of the Financial Mechanismxv 2)

including gender as a guiding parameter in the Nairobi

Work Programme on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnera-

bilityxvi and 3) the adoption of the Green Climate Fund

Board’s work plan. The latter includes the consideration

of a gender-sensitive approach to the entire fund at its

first meeting in February 2014.

CARE staff talk with locals living in a cyclone shelter in Puri district after cyclone Phailin struck eastern India in October 2013. © CARE.


8. SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE: Has support for sustainableagriculture been adequatelypromoted, including benefitsfor smallholder farmers in the context of climate change?

CARE believes that, when addressing the future of

agriculture in the face of climate change, the needs

and requirements of the world’s smallholder farmers

need to be front and centre of decisions taken under

the UNFCCC. Smallholder farmers feed billions of people

in some of the world’s poorest countries and are already

facing considerable challenges as the impacts of climate

change worsen.

The key event at COP19 relating to agriculture was a

workshop under the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and

Technological Advice (SBSTA), which focused on adaptation

in agriculture based on previous submissions made by

governments and organisations. The timing of the SBSTA

workshop on agriculture was not ideal, however, as the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has yet to

publish its report on climate impacts (scheduled for

March 2014) which will provide a more up to date,

scientific analysis of how climate change is already

affecting agriculture. With regard to COP19, negotiations

on agriculture never got underway due to a divergence

of views between developed and developing countries.

Many developing countries continue to fear that a work

programme on agriculture could be a Trojan horse for

the introduction of new mitigation initiatives, including

a preoccupation with carbon sequestration in agricul-

tural systems, whereas CARE believes the focus should

clearly be on adaptation. Some observers remarked that

the agriculture talks were being held hostage to progress

in other negotiating tracks.

Overall, the agriculture field continues to be a place

where tensions between different negotiating blocks are

played out. Underlying it all are two big issues: 1) adequate

funding for adaptation and 2) meaningful emissions

reductions targets. Strictly speaking, there should be no

need for a separate discussion on agriculture because

with adequate funding for adaptation the need for

agricultural investment in resilience and food security

could be met. Likewise, if developed countries made

bold commitments to cut their emissions, this would

include mitigation in the food and agricultural sector.

However, there are concerns that this impetus would

benefit large-scale, export-oriented agriculture, and not

smallholder farmers that are key to building resilience

and guaranteeing food security in many developing

countries.

9. FORESTS:Was there any progress to agree a framework that ensures the conservation of forests, including the reduction of emissions?

Sustainable forms of forest conservation are important

to limit global warming and to help people adapt to

climate change, particularly in some of the world’s poorest

countries. Respecting the rights of local and indigenous

communities through adequate social and environmental

safeguards is an important concern for CARE in the context

of the UNFCCC negotiations on Reducing Emissions from

Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+).

COP19 was a milestone for REDD+ as all of the discus-

sions on the technical issues mandated in Cancún were

finally concluded by SBSTA with the agreement of a

‘methodological package’, including forest monitoring,

forest reference levels, MRV, drivers and safeguards

information systems. An additional workstream dealt

with results-based finance for REDD+ activities. As

Mitilda Joseph waters plants at Vinile village, Tanzania. The villagers are part of a CARE agricultural forestry programme. © 2007 Brendan Bannon/CARE.


with most REDD text since Cancún, the wording is weak

but still enabling. A government could, for example, use

the agreed guidance to implement REDD in a way that

empowers communities. However, a number of loopholes

remain, meaning governments could still access REDD

funding without complying with agreed safeguards.

Significantly, the package also includes a provision that

results-based finance will only be made available after

a country has reported on its safeguards. While ‘results’

equates to tonnes of CO2, it also explicitly recognises

the importance of incentivising non-carbon benefits.

Although the wording is not as strong as hoped for,

these two issues were high on CARE’s agenda (and civil

society’s agenda as a whole). Following on from COP19,

it will be key to monitor how these agreements are

applied in financing REDD+, e.g. through the Green

Climate Fund, other international institutions and

bilateral cooperation.

10. OUTLOOK:Will the Warsaw negotiations trigger the paradigm shift needed to tackle the growing climate crisis?

The lack of ambition on the part of key countries, and

particularly major developed countries, raises serious

concerns about the future of global action to tackle

climate change. Will the international community work

together to stop the world descending into climate

chaos, or will it surrender to the influence of the fossil

fuel industry and concede to a 2-degree+ warmer world?

There is no question that the latter option is completely

unacceptable from a humanitarian and ecological point

of view, given the projected consequences of a business-

as-usual pathway and the climate impacts associated

with a 4-degree world on the one hand, and the potential

benefits of low-emission development pathways on the

other. Laying out this choice for ordinary citizens may

help drive global public opinion and guide improved

international and domestic polities on climate change.

COP19 showed a clear need for a rapid rebuilding of

trust between all governments and significantly

increased ambition to tackle the climate crisis. This

includes a collective spirit to agree emissions reductions

that ensure the world limits global warming to 2 degrees

– and ideally to below 1.5 degrees or less – as quickly

as possible. At the same time, support for vulnerable

countries to adapt to climate change, and compensation

for those who are already suffering recurring loss and

damage due to climate extremes and slow-onset events,

must be increased immediately, particularly given that

the next climate-related disaster is never far away.

Whether the politics and policies in key countries will

change in 2014 in favour of enhanced climate action

is unclear. Political and corporate forces that under-

mine a rapid and just transition to low-emission and

climate-resilient development still wield a lot of power.

Challenging and diminishing this power by shifting to

renewable energy sources is increasingly important,

particularly as the majority of existing fossil fuel reserves

will have to be left in the ground if the world is to avert

dangerous levels of warming.

However, there are some early indications that the foun-

dations of long-held resistance are shifting and that

there may be a better chance of scaled-up ambition to

tackle the climate crisis in the years ahead. The following

four elements are essential opportunities:

• In March 2014, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release the next instal-ment of its ‘Fifth Assessment Report’, focusing

on climate impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.

It is expected to show that a range of negative

consequences linked to climate change are already

unfolding around the world and that, under current

emissions trends, prospects for future impacts are

increasingly dire.

• In terms of the UNFCCC process itself there is also a glimmer of hope. After two Conferences of

the Parties in fossil fuel-guzzling Qatar and Poland,

the UNFCCC now turns its attention to Peru in 2014

and France in 2015, which are generally perceived

as being far more progressive on climate change.

• Next year’s UNFCCC intersessional meeting in Bonn in June will also include an extraordinary

high-level ministerial meeting during which countries

have been urged to discuss how they will increase

their ambition in the run-up to 2020. The meeting

will be a crucial step on the road to agreeing a new

climate deal in 2015.


• UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s high-level summit, to be held on 23 September 2014 in New

York in the context of the UN General Assembly, will

also provide a critical moment for renewed climate

action. It will be the first time heads of state and

government will come together since COP15 in

Copenhagen in 2009 to deal with climate change

and its implications for global development.

To ensure these political opportunities in the months

and years ahead are transformed into real and tangible

action that protects the world’s most vulnerable people

from the increasing scale and intensity of climate

impacts, far more public pressure will be needed at a

national and domestic level to leverage change. Initiatives

from national and sub-national levels can contribute to

the levels of pressure required through progressive action.

Indeed, the recognition of this fact by negotiators is

encouraging.xvii

There is still much work to do to activate people right

across civil society, and within national governments,

to raise their ambition and work together. Key countries

must also get their own houses in order and step up

action to allow for higher levels of collective ambition.

The current groundswell of support, which is emerging at

many levels and in many countries, must now transform

itself into a wave of climate action to trigger urgent

change towards low-emission and climate-resilient

development. Instead, if the world stands idly by as

global temperatures rise, widespread climate chaos will

almost certainly result. For the world’s poorest people

and for us all, failure to act is not an option.

People from around the world took to the streets outside the UN ‘COP19’ climate talks to demand climate justice. © Courtesy of Jamie Henn / 350.org / flickr.com / creative commons.


Endnotes

i See Hansen, J. et al., 2013: Assessing “Dangerous Climate Change”: Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20131202_ PopularSciencePlosOneE.pdf. It is important to note that 2 degrees is still above safe levels of warming, particularly for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. Indeed, many developing countries rightly insist on a limit of 1.5 degrees. Recent science suggests that limiting temperature rises to 1 degree is advisable, because higher levels of warming may result in dramatic sea-level rise.

ii http://climateactiontracker.org/news/151/In-talks-for-a-new-climate-treaty-a-race-to-the-bottom.html

iii http://www.rtcc.org/2013/11/08/un-climate-jargon-buster-a-guide-to-deciphering-the-warsaw-talks/

iv http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/decisions/application/pdf/cop19_report_gcf.pdf;

v http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/decisions/application/pdf/cop19_ltf.pdf

vi http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/decisions/application/pdf/cop19_scf.pdf

vii For more details see: https://adaptation-fund.org/media/adaptation-fund-surpasses-100-million- fundraising-target-cop19

viii http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/decisions/application/pdf/cop19_nairobiwp.pdf

ix http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/decisions/application/pdf/cop19_nap.pdf

x See also CARE, ActionAid and WWF, 2013: Tackling the climate reality. A framework for establishing an international mechanism to address loss and damage at COP19. http://www.careclimatechange.org/files/tackling_the_cli mate_reality.pdf

xi http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/application/pdf/ld_g77_submission_nov_2013.pdf

xii http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/decisions/application/pdf/cop19_lossanddamage.pdf

xiii For more information on official gender activities see: http://unfccc.int/gender_and_climate_change/ items/7516.php

xiv http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/sbi/eng/l16.pdf

xv http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/decisions/application/pdf/cop19_fifth_review_finmech.pdf

xvi http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/warsaw_nov_2013/decisions/application/pdf/cop19_nairobiwp.pdf

xvii http://unfccc.int/files/bodies/awg/application/pdf/adp_conclusions_as_adopted.pdf


List of acronyms

AC Adaptation Committee

ADP Durban Platform for Enhanced Action

COP Conference of the Parties (to the UNFCCC)

GGCA Global Gender and Climate Alliance

HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LDCs Least Developed Countries

MRV Monitoring, Reporting and Verification

NAPs National Adaptation Plans

NWP Nairobi Work Programme on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

ODA Official Development Assistance

REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

SBSTA Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (to the UNFCCC)

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

USD US Dollars

For further information about this document, please contact Sven Harmeling, CARE International climate change

advocacy coordinator: [email protected] +49 (0) 177 613 6431

CARE InternationalSecretariatChemin de Balexert 7-91219 ChateleineGenevaSwitzerland +41 22 795 10 20www.careinternational.org

Poverty, Environment and Climate Change Network (PECCN)c/o CARE DenmarkJemtelandsgade 12300 CopenhagenDenmark+45 35 200 100

COPYRIGHT: CARE INTERNATIONAL 2013

Founded in 1945, CARE is a leading humanitarian organisation fighting global poverty and providing lifesaving assistance in emergencies. In 84 countries around the world, CARE places special focus on working alongside poor girls and women because, equipped with the proper resources, they have the power to help lift whole families and entire communities out of poverty. To learn more, visit www.careinternational.org.

www.careclimatechange.org

no surrender to climate chaos: what happened and where ......the un climate talks: climate change,...

Documents