Capacity Building for Climate Change Adaptation

Understanding the Paris Agreement in the Pacific, Part 4

Our fourth and final installment of the Paris Agreement ‘explained’ in the Pacific context examines the focus on capacity building. Given that the agreement puts emphasis on local government and civil society in Paris Agreement implementation, it is unsurprising that capacity building gets its own mention. While capacity building is referenced throughout the document, it has specific mention in Article 11: “Capacity building should be country-driven, based on and responsive to national needs and foster country ownership, including at national, subnational and local levels.”

This is important because the sustainability of climate change mitigation and adaptation initiatives needs to be based on local knowledge, particularly in countries like the Pacific where geography limits the quantity and type of interventions which can be undertaken, and the frequency with which outside expertise can be reasonably accessed. Which turns our attention to ‘capacity building for what’ exactly?

What is Damage and Loss in Terms of Climate Change?

Understanding the Paris Agreement in the Pacific, Part 3 

What is ‘damage and loss’? It was a quite contentious component of the negotiations during COP21 in Paris, largely because it apportions blame for the impacts of climate change on the biggest polluters - those which are essentially causing sea level rise and changes to the climate that see more intensive and frequent storms and droughts that impact the poorest nations the hardest. For example, it is no secret that the current El Nino, which is causing massive drought across the Pacific, south East Asia and much of Africa, is the strongest on record in large part due to climate change. Significant and perhaps irreparable damage to crops and agricultural land is taking place - losses which will impact the livelihoods and economies of those affected to the point that some communities may need to migrate for seasonal work or entirely and find new places to live, meaning they lose not only their livelihoods but also their homes and land - things they are unlikely to be compensated for.  

It makes sense in theory that climate victims should be compensated - this is particularly relevant in the Pacific Islands where entire communities and even countries are at risk of survival and continued existence. Climate change is having drastic impacts through no fault of Pacific Islanders - who contributed a stunning 0.02% of Greenhouse Gas emissions up to 2010 - and many risk losing everything and should definitely compensated for it.