What does the Paris Agreement mean for adaptation?

Abstract

This article provides a critical view on what the Paris Agreement means for the trajectory of adaptation policy at the international and state levels in light of the stated aim of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to make adaptation an equal priority with mitigation. Main TextOn 12 December 2015 at the 21st meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21), the Paris Agreement to combat climate change was adopted by the member states of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, or 'the Convention'). The Agreement will succeed the Kyoto Protocol in 2020 and constitute a cornerstone of global climate governance for the coming decades. Adaptation emerged as a focus area under the Convention in 2001, but is still not equal to mitigation with regard to target-setting, financing, and institutional frameworks. The outcomes from COP 21 build on previous decisions and work streams to establish a stronger roadmap for deepening the emphasis on adaptation planning and implementation under the Convention. The Paris Agreement strengthens adaptation in four ways: (i) it broadens the normative framing around adaptation, (ii) it integrates stronger adaptation commitments from state actors, (iii) it is explicit about the multi-level nature of adaptation governance, and (iv) it strengthens mechanisms for enhanced transparency on asses-sing adaptation progress (UNFCCC, 2015). Paris broadens the normative framing around adaptationInternational agreements such as Paris are important barometers of the underlying norms that shape inter-national discourses on issues such as climate change (Haas, 2002;Simmons, 2010), and the COP meetings con-tribute to this process as sites of discursive struggles over issue framings and appropriate policy-making approaches. The Paris Agreement is reflective of the processes by which climate change discourses and agendas emerge, persist, and change. Under previous decisions, adaptation was largely approached as an issue of biophysical exposure affecting regions with low levels of economic development (Schipper, 2006). The Pre-amble of the Agreement, however, reflects a widening discourse within the UNFCCC beyond the framing

Non‐state actors in hybrid global climate governance: justice, legitimacy, and effectiveness in a post‐Paris era

“…But it also means that non‐state actors will need to actively hold states to account through naming‐and‐shaming efforts between global stocktakes as well as at COPs (as we see currently with CAN's ‘Fossil of the Day’ awards). However, this watchdog role will be complicated until a transparency framework is in place and there is some convergence on how states should report NDCs . We should also be wary that this watchdog function increases the likelihood of governmentality—that non‐state actors are used in service of government functions.…”

“…This could be achieved by contributing to concrete emission reductions . Other motives for non‐state contributions could be cost effectiveness by taking on monitoring tasks otherwise performed by government agencies or complement the public funding in climate finance to deliver the committed annual 100 US billion or other adaptation finance . Further, they can achieve economic effectiveness, for example, by involving businesses and cities in greening the economy.…”

Global adaptation governance: An emerging but contested domain

“…Biermann (Biermann, , ; Biermann & Boas, ) coined the term and has called for “global adaptation governance.” Khan () calls for “a binding adaptation regime” and “a new norm of adaptation as a global public good.” Magnan and Ribera () propose a “global adaptation framework.” Second, this emerging literature breaks with the strong tendency so far in the large global climate governance scholarship to study adaptation only in a very limited way or not at all, compared with mitigation‐related initiatives (Bulkeley et al, ; Jordan et al, ) . Third, the Paris Agreement's strengthened provisions on adaptation in Article 7, including the global goal (see above), herald a new era and open new questions for research and practice as the provisions are to be operationalized (Lesnikowski et al, ; Magnan & Ribera, ).…”

Adaptation Strategies for Water Resources: Criteria for Research

“…It is expected that the parties will introduce adaptation into their national development, and environmental plans and policies [3], but currently, the question of measuring vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and resilience is the new challenge for policy makers and scientists, and for this goal to be operationalized, more conceptual work needs to be done [4]. The fact that adaptation is so complex-being cross-sectoral and multi-dimensional with political, economic, environmental and social dimensions-has led to a great amount of work, but without proposing a common framework [5].…”

“…The parties affirmed that "adaptation must be addressed with the same priority as mitigation" [1,2]. Under this framework, the COP invited "all Parties to enhance action on adaptation" [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] by "planning, prioritizing and implementing adaptation actions, including projects and programs" [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. The Paris agreement (COP21) provided numerous indications and details about adaptation, mainly in Article 7 [2].…”