Article 4 Paragraph 12 Of The Paris Agreement

[57] Ben Adler, Why the Words Loss and Damage Are Causing Such a Fuss at the Paris Climate Talks, Vox Energy & Env`t, (updated December 9, 2015 at 9:00 a.m.). This article goes beyond reduction commitments and examines how the adaptation and loss and damage provisions of the Paris Agreement are based on differentiation in order to allow for combined top-down and bottom-up approaches to achieve the overall cooperation objectives set out in Article 2 by the UNFCCC and the COP. It describes the fundamental aspects of the Paris Agreement and the cop21 decision`s treatment of adaptation, loss and damage, which allows the Parties to work towards a qualitative objective based on the Parties` unique vulnerabilities and capacities to respond to the effects of climate change. While the expanded transparency framework is universal, as is the global inventory to be held every five years, the framework aims to provide “integrated flexibility” to distinguish between the capacities of developed and developing countries. In this context, the Paris Agreement includes provisions to improve the capacity building framework. [58] The agreement recognises the different circumstances of some countries and notes in particular that the technical expert review for each country takes into account that country`s specific reporting capacity. [58] The agreement also develops an initiative to enhance transparency to help developing countries put in place the institutions and processes necessary to comply with the transparency framework. [58] For the first time in the history of international climate negotiations, adaptation has its own article in a piece of legislation. What is even more striking is that loss and damage, which has historically been treated as part of adaptation, do so too. For many years, negotiations on adaptation, loss and damage have been controversial between industrialized countries, which prioritize reducing adaptation and loss and damage, and developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The chronicle of the controversial discussions and negotiations that led to these monumental articles of the Paris Agreement shows the tensions still present between the parties to the agreement. It also highlights negotiable points for future Conferences of the Parties (“COPs”).

Article 8 differs from adaptation and mitigation articles in that neither it nor the related decisions have any indication of funding. How the parties handle damage caused by extreme weather or slow events is unclear. Similarly, how contracting parties will finance damage planning measures remains unclear. While the creation of a specific article on loss and damage in the Paris Agreement concludes the debate on its proper placement, gaps in its treatment will fuel future debate on adjustment financing measures. Since COP14 in 2008, the parties have not agreed on how to deal with loss and damage together. In the preparation of the Paris Agreement, until the penultimate draft, the parties were not informed of whether loss and damage are covered by an article in the agreement, whether they occupy a subordinate position within the adaptation article or whether they are relegated to the decision. In the end, the parties agreed to designate a separate article of the agreement for loss and damage. Ultimately, all parties have recognized the need to “prevent, minimize and treat loss and damage,” but in particular any mention of indemnification or liability is excluded. [11] The Convention also adopts the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, an institution that will attempt to answer questions relating to the classification, management and sharing of responsibilities in the event of loss. [56] These paragraphs focus on the need to tackle adaptation together, although specific adaptation needs vary from country to country.

. . .