Lima challenge: Cooking up a climate agreement

By Ruth Davis

[...]Understanding climate risk

Filling the gap on ambition is, however, only part of the solution.

Whilst systems already exist to encourage vulnerable countries to plan for the impacts of a climate change, there is a clear case for strengthening this element of any future deal.

Regular cycles of risk assessment and adaptation planning would provide a snapshot of the real-time impacts of climate change (something that doesn’t currently exist); whilst allowing governments to take into account a possible 3 or 4 degree temperature rise when making investment decisions – if this was what was implied by collective efforts to cut emissions.

Such assessments would highlight the implications of rising temperatures for international development programmes – since efforts to alleviate poverty are likely to be seriously compromised by climate change - increasing the need for development aid in future, and reducing the effectiveness of what has already been spent.

Indeed, there is a strong case for linked cycles of financial planning to work alongside pollution targets and risk assessment plans – with richer countries making regular pledges to the Green Climate Fund, in line the scale of actions being proposed on mitigation and adaptation.

Get the detail of the risks

Prudent financial planning should also spur further reform of the framework of global institutions, to ensure they are fit for purpose under a changed climate.

The World Bank has already undertaken a review of the impacts of a 4 degree temperature rise on future development. Similar efforts from institutions working on agriculture, forestry, oceans management and infrastructure, as well as security and disaster relief, would increase their effectiveness and resilience. They would also help drive robust risk analysis and adaptation planning in all countries, not just the most vulnerable, or those seeking international financial support.

Such action could fruitfully be captured under a long-term goal to increase shared climate resilience, which would complement a long-term emissions phase-out goal.

An agreement of this kind, based on long-term goals and repeating cycles of planning and action is (of course) unlikely to emerge in the relatively smooth form described here (if, indeed, you think this is smooth).

But it does represent a genuine effort to marry the political and practical realities of energy politics with a clear understanding of risk, in an agreement that can take account of the needs of climate ‘takers’ as well as ‘makers’. It is also co-incidentally, the foundation of the UK’s own domestic Climate Change Act.

For politicians waking up to a tough year of negotiations, keeping this picture in mind might help focus minds and set priorities. The ingredients of a durable agreement have been laid out. What sort of a meal the leaders and negotiators of 195 or so countries will make of them is still anybody’s guess.

Ruth Davis is political director at Greenpeace UK