A PDF combined with PDFGarden - EMAPS

MAPPERS:Peter Gerry, The Young FoundationMichele Mauri, Density DesignAnders Kristian Munk, AAU Copenhagen & SciencesPoMathiey Jacomy, SciencesPoEMAPS

EMAPS (Electronic Maps to Assist Public Science) is a collborative research project funded by the European Research Council to map controversies around climate change adaptation.For more info please visit http://www.emapsproject.com/blog/objectives.

UNFCCCList of participants

from each COP 2003-2013

From this we extracted

72.621 names of parcipants

Who are allowed to speak and where are they allowed to speak?

year arena name

Arenas Dataset MapsNames

SBI?

Right to speak= In meeting report

COP Side events?

Right to speak = Organizer

SBSTA?

Right to speak= In meeting report

2IĆFHU�RI�WKH�&23"

Right to speak= Elected chair

Adapt. Committee?

Right to speak= Elected member

LEG?


Consult. Gr. Exp.?


IPCC?

Right to speak= Author

WHAT DOES A CAREER IN THE COP LOOK LIKE?

HOW DO CLIMATE CHANGE ARENAS OVERLAP?

WHO ARE THE TOP 500 MOST PRESENT ACTORS IN THE COP?

WHAT DOES A CAREER IN THE COP LOOK LIKE?

The research question for this project was: who are the experts on adaptation?��:H�RSHUDWLRQDOLVHG�WKLV�TXHVWLRQ�E\�GHĆQLQJ�H[SHUWLVH�DV�WKH�ULJKWV�WR�VSHDN�RU�DFW�LQ�D�SDUWLFXODU�DUHQD��:H�ĆUVW�KDUYHVWHG�WKH�QDPHV�RI�DOO�81)&&&�&23�SDUWLFLSDQWV�IURP��:H�WKHQ�VHDUFKHG�IRU�DQ\�PHQWLRQ�RI�WKHVH�QDPHV�LQ�GRFXPHQWV�IURP��GLIIHUHQW�FOLPDWH�FKDQJH�DUHQDV��)URP�WKLV�ZH�H[WUDFWHG�D�GDWDVHW�RI�QDPHV�RFFXULQJ�LQ�GLIIHUHQW�DUHQDV�RYHU�WLPH��7KH�PDSV�SUHVHQWHG�DUH�DOO�EDVHG�RQ�WKLV�GDWD�VHW

This is a prototype! 7KHUH�DUH�VWLOO�SUREOHPV��VXFK�DV�QDPHV�DSSHDULQJ�LQ�GLIIHUHQW�IRUPDWV�RU�QDPHV�EHLQJ�WRR�JHQHULF�WR�SRVVLWLYHO\�VLJQLI\�RQH�SDUWLFXODU�DFWRU��$Q�HODERUDWHG�YHUVLRQ�RI�WKLV�GDWDVHW�ZRXOG�DOVRLQFOXGH�D�UDQJH�RI�GRFXPHQWV�IURP�RWKHU�DUHQDV��VXFK�DV�WKH�PHHWLQJ�SURFHHGLQJV�RI�WKH�&23��WKH�SURFHHGLQJV�RI�WKH�.\RWR�SURWRFRO��WKH�DGYLVRU\�%RDUG�RI�WKH�&7&1��WKH�H[HFXWLYH�ERDUG�RI�WKH�&'0��WKH�&RPSOLDQFH�&RPPLWWHH�WKH�-RLQW�,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ�6XSHUYLVRU\�&RPPLWWHH��WKH�6WDQGLQJ�&RPPLWWHH�RQ�)LQDQFH��WKH�7HFKQRORJ\�([HFXWLYH�&RPPLWWHH��RU�WKH�$G�+RF�:RUNLQJ�*URXSV�

Carlos Fuller Helen PlumeArthur Rolle

Tomasz Chruszczow

Kishan Kumarsingh Amjad Abdulla

Taka Hiraishi

Klaus Radunsky Christina Chan

Fred

Machulu Onduri

Andrej Kranjc

Mich

elle Campbell

Lilian Portillo

Mar

garet Mukahanana-

Mar

gare

t Mukahanana-sangarw

eHarald Dovland

Cli!ord Mahlung Fre

drick KossamGe

rtraud Wollansky Ch

ristiana Figueres

Vute

Wangwacharakul

Collin Beck

Will

iam

Kojo Agyemang-bonsu

Riitta Pipatti

Kiyoto Tanabe

Batu

Krishna Uprety Beth Lavender Juan Pablo

Heor

hiy Veremiychyk

Jim Penman

Taiki Kuroda

Ja

ck Fitzgerald Ibila Djibril Philip Wood

Alex

ander Pankin Andro DrecunJu

an Pablo Ho!maister

Lu

ke Daunivalu

Naoya Tsukamoto

Sum

aya A

hmed Zakieldeen

Robe

rt Owen-jones Ya

mil BondukiEm

ily Massawa

Daniela Stoycheva

Ali Khan

Ja

wed Ali Khan Jenny Gell

Jukk

a UosukainenRu

leta Camacho

Sang

chan Limjirakan

Bagher Asadi Re

nate Christ

Rawleston Moore

Artu

r Runge-metzger

Abias

Moma Huongo

Anke Herold Karsten Sach

Ca

rlos Mansilla Ba

rbara Black

Tomoya Motoda

Wolfgang Sterk

Zsuz

sanna Ivanyi

Jean JouzelJo

yce E. Penner Mich

ael Prather

Ronald J. Stou!er

Tom M.L. Wigley

Venk

atachalam Ram

Yvo De Boer Ed Cooper

Graham Sem

Harol

do D

e Oliveira Machado

Haroldo

De Oliveira Machado Filho

En

ele Sopoaga Th

omas Becker Ho

lger Liptow

Alex

ander Pisarenko Ta

ty

ana OsoskovaEd

win Aalders Ko

ko Warner Lis

a Jacobson Lu

ke Warren

Mar

grethe Sagevik

Ulrike RoehrAu

dun Rosland

Emily

Ojoo-massawa

Douglas YeeM

am

adou Honadia Matt

i Nummelin Bruno T. Sekoli

Gary Cowan

Ibrahi

m Ahmed Ali Al-ajm

i Lum

umba Stanislaus-

Lumum

ba

Stanislaus-kaw Di-

Oleg

Shamanov Sung-hwan Son

Helm

ut Hojesky

Mah

endra Kumar Bu

bu

Pateh Jallow Brian

Challenger Ho

ngwei Yang Ko

k Kee ChowTh

elma Krug

Emman

uel Dumisani Dlam

ini Eric

Ka

moga MugurusiFe

rn

ando Farias Thinley Namgyel Erasm

ia KitouMark New

Axel

Michaelowa Di

etrich Borst Fa

izal Parish

Fran

k Martin Seifert Go

telind AlberHe

lee

n De Coninck

Peter Ho

Peter Hoeppe Ra

chel Berger

Raym

ond De Chavez

Re

uben SessaRo

byn Camp

Anny Cazenave David

Vaughan Fran

k Dentener

Mar

kku Rummukainen

Mat

thew CollinsM

ichae

l Oppenhei mer

Pe

ter A. Stott Ph

ilippe CiaisSt

ephen Schneider Paul Desanker

Kuni

hiko ShimadaM

artha Perdom

o Saten

der Singh Lian

a BratasidaKa

m

el Djemouai

Ting Li

Caro

line DicksonOu

sman Jarju

Pa O

usman Jarju Marc

ia Levaggi Vlad Trusca

Anab

ella Rosem

berg David

TurnbullIk

Kyo Chung

James Ramsey Jo-ellen Parry

John

Lanchbery Junk

o Morizane Kr

istin Tilley

MAPPERS:Peter Gerry, The Young Foundation

Michele Mauri, Density Design

Anders Kristian Munk, AAU Copenhagen & SciencesPo

Mathiey Jacomy, SciencesPo

The idea of this map is to show how participants in the COP act as experts in different arenas. It shows you both

how present participants have been in different arenas and what kinds of arenas they have been present in.

Participants are ranked based on the number of times they have spoken in different arenas, and in different COPs,

over time. This means that a participant who has spoken in three different arenas during four different COPs

(twelve appearances in total) will rank higher than a person who has spoken in only one arena during all ten COPs

(ten appearances in total). The relative presence of one actor in each arena is shown by the colours.

To be counted as ‘having spoken’ in an arena an actor must be listed as an organizer, a chair, an author, or be men-

WLRQHG�LQ�D�PHHWLQJ�UHSRUW��,W�LV�QRW�HQRXJK�VLPSO\�ĆJXUH�RQ�WKH�OLVW�RI�SDUWLFLSDQWV��

HOW TO READ IT

THE ACTORS

Actor Name

overall presence

Adaptation Committee

Consultative Group of Experts

COP Side Events and Exhibits

IPCC Author

LEG2IĆFHU�RI�WKH�&23

SBI

SBSTA

WHO ARE THE TOP 150 MOST PRESENT ACTORS IN THE COP?

6%67$��7KH�6XEVLGLDU\�%RG\�IRU�6FLHQWLĆF�DQG�7HFKQRORJLFDO�$GYLFH� The SBSTA supports the work of the COP and

WKH�&03�WKURXJK�WKH�SURYLVLRQ�RI�WLPHO\�LQIRUPDWLRQ�DQG�DGYLFH�RQ�VFLHQWLĆF�DQG�WHFKQRORJLFDO�PDWWHUV�DV�WKH\�relate to the Convention or its Kyoto Protocol.

6%,��7KH�6XEVLGLDU\�%RG\�RQ�,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ��The SBI is one of two permanent subsidiary bodies to the Conven-

tion established by the COP/CMP. It supports the work of the COP and the CMP through the assessment and

review of the effective implementation of the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol.

2IĆFHU�RI�WKH�&RS� The COP is the supreme decision-making body of the Convention, where all Parties are repre-

sented. There are 11 elected members consisting of a President, Vice-Presidents, and the Chairs of the subsidiary

bodies and the Rapporteur.

/(*��7KH�/HDVW�'HYHORSHG�&RXQWULHV�([SHUW�*URXS��,W�FRQVLVWV�RI��PHPEHUV�ZKR�DUH�FRQĆUPHG�E\�WKH�6XEVLGLDU\�Body for Implementation (SBI) and can serve for as long as their repspective region decides.

&RQVXOWDWLYH�*URXS�RI�([SHUWV��PHPEHUV�FRQĆUPHG�E\�WKH�6XEVLGLDU\�%RG\�IRU�,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ��6%,��0HPEHUV�serve for 2 years and can only serve for two consecutive terms.

$GDSWDWLRQ�&RPPLWWHH� 16 members elected by the COP, half of them for 3 years, the other half for 2 years. They

are not allowed to serve more than two consecutive terms.

&23�6LGH�(YHQWV�DQG�([KLELWV��As the name suggests these take place alongside the COPs, and other UNFCCC

events. They were originally established by the secretariat as a forum for duly admitted observer organizations to

highlight diverse climate change issues in a different environment from the negotiation process itself.

,3&&�$XWKRU��Authors for the IPCC reports are chosen from a list of researchers prepared by governments and

participating organisations, and by the Working Group/Task Force Bureaux, as well as other experts known through

their published work.

(0$36��(OHFWURQLF�0DSV�WR�$VVLVW�3XEOLF�6FLHQFH��is a collborative research project funded by the European Research Council to map controversies around climate change adaptation.For more info please visit http://www.emapsproject.com/blog/objectives.




Mathiey Jacomy, SciencesPoEMAPSEMAPS (Electronic Maps to Assist Public Science) is a collborative research project funded by the European Research Council to map controversies around climate change adaptation.For more info please visit http://www.emapsproject.com/blog/objectives.

Carlos Fuller

Adaption Committee

Consultative group of experts

Cop Side Event

IPCC

LEG

2IĆFHU�RI�WKH�&23SBI

SBSTA

20122011201020092008200720062005 201320042003

20122011201020092008200720062005 201320042003

Adaption Committee


Cop Side Event

IPCC

LEG


SBSTA

Arthur Rolle

20122011201020092008200720062005 201320042003

Adaption Committee


Cop Side Event

IPCC

LEG


SBSTA

Helen Plume

Kishan Kumarsingh

20122011201020092008200720062005 201320042003

Adaption Committee


Cop Side Event

IPCC

LEG


SBSTA

Malte Meinshausen

20122011201020092008200720062005 201320042003

Adaption Committee


Cop Side Event

IPCC

LEG


SBSTA



















The map shows 5 examples of individual trajectories through different climate change arenas. The idea is to see

how actors switch between arenas over time. To be counted as ‘having spoken’ in an arena an actor must be listed as

DQ�RUJDQL]HU��D�FKDLU��DQ�DXWKRU��RU�EH�PHQWLRQHG�LQ�D�PHHWLQJ�UHSRUW��,W�LV�QRW�HQRXJK�VLPSO\�ĆJXUH�RQ�WKH�OLVW�RI�participants.

NB: These are just examples. For an interactive exploration of the trajectory of each COP participant over time,

please visit http://ladem.fr/misc/sprint2014/trajectories.php.

:+$7�'2(6�$�&$5((5�,1�7+(�&23�LOOK LIKE?




Mathiey Jacomy, SciencesPoEMAPS

The idea of the map is to show how each climate change arena shares actors with other arenas over time. The

streamgraphs are based on the co-appearance of the names of actors in the datasets pertaining to each arena. The

more an arena appears on the graph of another arena the bigger is their actor overlap relative to the maximum

overlap between the two.

To be counted as belonging to an arena an actor must be listed as an organizer, a chair, an author, or be mentioned in

D�PHHWLQJ�UHSRUW��,W�LV�QRW�HQRXJK�VLPSO\�ĆJXUH�RQ�WKH�OLVW�RI�SDUWLFLSDQWV��

HOW DO CLIMATE CHANGE ARENAS OVERLAP?

EMAPS (Electronic Maps to Assist Public Science) is a collborative research project funded by the European Research Council to map controversies around climate change adaptation.For more info please visit http://www.emapsproject.com/blog/objectives.This is a prototype



















2005

2006

this�6SHFLĆF�$UHQD�has shared actors with:

Consultative Group of Experts SBSTA 2IĆFHU�RI�WKH�&23SBI

HOW TO READ IT

1 person

,Q��WKLV�6SHFLĆF�$UHQD�shared no actors with other arenas

,Q��WKLV�6SHFLĆF�$UHQD�VKDUHG�DFWRUVwith 4 other arenas

��SHUVRQV�ZKR�VSRNH�LQ�WKLV�6SHFLĆF�$UHQDin 2005 also spoke in the SBSTA in 2005

Adaptation Committee

SBI

SBSTA

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

2012

2013

SBSTA SBI

1 person

The Adaptation Committee was only set up in 2012.

2003

2004

20052006

20072008

2009

2010

2011

20122013

SBIConsultative Group of Experts Adaptation Committee LEG SBSTA COP Side Events 2IĆFHU�RI�WKH�&23

1 person

Actors on the Subsidiary Body of Implementation frequently appear in a range of other arenas as well.

SBSTA COP Side EventsSBI

2003

2004

2005 2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011 2012 2013

2IĆFHU�RI�WKH�&23

1 person

1RWLFH�WKDW�ZKLOH�VRPH�RIĆFHUV�RI�WKH�&23�XVHG�WR�EH�DOVR�RQ�WKH�6XEVLGLDU\�%RG\�RI�,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ��6%,��RU�WKH�6XEVLGLDU\�%RG\�RI�6FLHQWLĆF�DQG�7HFKQRORJLFDO�$GYLFH��6%67$��WKLV�WUHQG�VHHP�WR�KDYH�IDGHG�

LEG

2003 2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011 2012

2013

IPCC Author Consultative Group of Experts COP Side EventsSBISBSTA

1 person

1RWLFH�IRU�H[DPSOH�WKDW�WKHUH�LV�QR�RYHUODS�LQ��DQG��EHWZHHQ�WKH�/HDVW�'HYHORSHG�&RXQWULHV�([SHUW�*URXS��/(*��DQG�RWKHU�DUHQDV��,Q�JHQHUDO�WKHUH�LV�D�VXEVWDQWLDO�RYHUODS�ZLWK�WKH�6XEVLGLDU\�%RG\�RI�,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ�

2003

2004

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2005

Consultative Group of Experts LEG SBSTA 2IĆFHU�RI�WKH�&23SBI

&23�6LGH�(YHQWV

1 person

1RWLFH�WKH�UHODWLYHO\�OLPLWHG��PD[��SHUVRQ��DQG�FRQWLQJHQW�RYHUODS�EHWZHHQ�WKH�&23�VLGH�HYHQWV�DQG�RWKHU�DUHQDV��:H�NQRZ�WKDW�LW�LV�IDU�IURP�XQFRPPRQ�IRU�DFWRUV�WR�EH�LQ�WKH�VLGH�HYHQWV�RQH�\HDU�DQG�LQ�RWKHU�DUHQDV�RWKHU�\HDUV��EXW�DSSDUHQWO\�UDUHO\�LQ�WKH�VDPH�\HDU�

2003

2004

2005 2006

2007

2008 2009

2010

20112012 2013

LEG SBSTA COP Side EventsSBI

&RQVXOWDWLYH�*URXS�RI�([SHUWV

1 person

1%��7KHUH�LV�FXUUHQWO\�QR�GDWD�DYDLODEOH�IRU��RQ�WKH�HOHFWHG�FKDLUV�IRU�WKH�FRQVXOWDWLYH�JURXS�RI�H[SHUWV�

2003

20042005 2006

2007

2008

2009 2010 2011

2012

2013

Consultative Group of Experts Adaptation Committee LEG COP Side Events 2IĆFHU�RI�WKH�&23SBI

SBSTA

1 person

7KH�JUDSK�VKRZV�D�FRQWLQXRXV�RYHUODS�ZLWK�WKH�6XEVLGLDU\�%RG\�IRU�,PSOHPHQWDWLRQ��6%,��

2 0 ye a r s o f n e g o t i a t i o n s

o n a d a p t a t i o n a t U N F C C C C O PsW H E N T H E U N F C C C WA S A D O P T E D I N 1 9 9 2, A DA P TAT I O N WA S L A RG E LY S E E N A S A N A F T E RT H O U G H T TO M I T I G AT I O N.I N R E C E N T Y E A R S, H O W E V E R, A DA P TAT I O N H A S B E C O M E A K E Y P I E C E O F T H E R E S P O N S E TO C L I M AT E C H A N G E.

1 / 4

The Convention was set with the ultimate objectiveto prevent dangerous

anthropogenic interferences with the climate system.

It was based on principlesof sustainable development,

precaution, polluter-pays, common but differentiated

responsibilities (equity)DQG�HFRQRPLF�HIĆFLHQF\�

State responsibility for adverse effects of climate

change was raised by AOSIS and vulnerable countries, but

political compromises prevented agreement about

the responsibility of impacts. Adaptation related issues

are mentioned in many key convention commitments

(e.g. article 4.4. on developed countries assisting most vulnerable countries in

meeting costs of adaptation; article 4.8 for insurance for

climate change loss and damage induced impacts).

Adaptation, however, will be long downplayed during

COPs and funding struggles happening parallel

to the UNFCCC.

Key decisions on a staged-approach to funding,

which will last until 2002.In practice, reduced funding

allocated for adaptation.

Representatives of AOSIS and African countries

renewed concern about their particular vulnerability and

the lack of technical and ĆQDQFLDO�UHVRXUFHV�IRU�

prevention and adaptation, and called on the GEF to play

an enabling role. Focus was mainly on observing the

impacts of climate change and assessing risksand vulnerabilities.

Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol set up an

adaptation fund basedon CER from CDM.

Small vulnerable countries obtained funding

for adaptation on the basisof allowing developed

countries to buy offsets from bigger developing countries.

Only few references to adaptation on the need to consider the issue and its

funding through CDM.

AOSIS keeps emphasizing their vulnerability to global warming and underscored the need to develop long

term approachesto adaptation in the

Convention’s context.

Discussion are growingon the need to establish

an adaptation fund,but disagreements on the type of fund, its funding

modalities and competences prevailed.

Further discussionson the establishment

of an adaptation fund.

Adaptation policy moves on to a phase of planning and

pilot implementation. NAPA's were set up. Adaptation

Fund, the Special Climate Change (SCC) Fund and the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Fund were created to

support technology transfer, adaptation projects and

other activities, taking into account national

communications or NAPAs, and other relevant

information providedby the applicant Party.

Developing countries called for greater focus on

adaptation, but disagreements arose on the

status of adaptation with regards to mitigation. Some

parties had a tendency to merge both issues, while

others claimed that mitigation and adaptation

are separate issues. Attempts to achieve a

balance between adaptation and mitigation did not

succeed. COP-8 is with COP-10 part of the so-called

"adaptation COPs".

China/G77 and AOSIS, concerned with the mixed

results of mitigation measures pushed for more

attention to adaptation needs. The COP stressed the need for developed countries

to provide detailed information on their

assistance to most vulnerable developing

country Parties in meeting costs of adaptation.

The Buenos Aires programme of Work on

Adaptation and Response Measures is established and aimed at enhancing capacity

at all levels to identify and understand impacts,

vulnerability and adaptation responses, and implementing practical, effective and high priority adaptation actions.

According to ENB: a new chapter in the negotiations. COP-8 is with COP-10 part

of the so-called"adaptation COPs".

Adverse effects of climate change on developing and least developed countries, DQG�VHYHUDO�ĆQDQFLDO�DQG�

budget-related issues, including guidelines to the

Global Environment Facility (GEF) were addressed.

Following the aftermathof several extreme weather

events (Katrina, EU KHDWZDYHV��$XVWUDOLDV�ĆUHV��GURXJKWV�DQG�ćRRGLQJV�LQ�Middle-income countries

(MICs)) put an end to a narrative of invulnerability

in developed countries, which started considering

their own adaptation needs. It is agreed that adaptation is

of high priority for all countries. The controversy on adaptation vs mitigation

is "closed". The debateis moving toward

adaptation funding.

Agreement on proceduresof the Adaptation Fund and “Nairobi Work Programme

on Impacts, Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate

Change” to assist all Parties to improve their

understanding and assessment of impacts,

vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, and make

informed decisions on practical adaptation actions

and measures (UNFCCC).

The Bali Conference marked a turning point in adaptation

policy towards scaling up implementation and

mainstreaming. One of the VLJQLĆFDQW�RXWFRPHV�EULQJLQJ�together both adaptation and ĆQDQFH�ZDV�WKH�GHFLVLRQ�WR�

operationalize the Adaptation Fund, which was set up to ĆQDQFH�DGDSWDWLRQ�LQ�developing countries.

The Fund had proven to be particularly delicate to

negotiate because, unlike other funds under the

UNFCCC, it is funded through a levy on CDM projectsin developing countries

and is therefore not dependent on donors.

Strengthening previous agreements and mechanisms

on adaptation. Adaptation Fund was launched under the .\RWR�3URWRFRO��WR�EH�ĆOOHG�by a 2% levy on CERs sold

under the CDM. It was agreed that the Adaptation

Fund Board should have legal capacity to grant direct

access to developing countries.

The COP mentioned the Green Climate Fund,

established one year later in Cancun. Developed countries

agreed to support a goal of mobilizing US$100 billion a year by 2020 to address the

needs of developing countries to show they are

still engaged in the negotiation process, even

though this Copenhagen is seen as the COP of failed

ambitions.

The Green Climate Fund was formally established but not

agreed upon. A debate emerged about the transfer

of funding from development to adaptation. The loss and

damage approach gained visibility with the

HVWDEOLVKPHQW�RI�D�VSHFLĆF�work program. Developed and developing countries

maintained divergent views on institutional mechanisms

and funding regarding loss and damage.

Agreement on Green Climate Fund Framework to provide

ĆQDQFLQJ�IRU�DFWLRQ�LQ�developing countries via

thematic funding windows, including for adaptation.The Cancun Adaptation

Framework aims at enhancing actions on

adaptation through international cooperation,

and the creation of an Adaptation Committee.

Loss and damage concept formalized. Little progress

on Green Climate Fund. Controversies revolved on funding for adaptation and

loss and damage.

Loss and damage concept formalized. Little progress

on Green Climate Fund. Controversies revolved on funding for adaptation and

loss and damage.

The "Berlin Mandate" agreed on establishing a process to

negotiate strengthened commitments for developed

countries in order to meet the Convention's objective.

4XDQWLĆHG�(PLVVLRQV�Limitation and Reduction

Objectives (QELROs)for different Parties and

an acceleration of the Berlin Mandate talks were

discussed. Need to favor ćH[LELOLW\�DQG�OHJDOO\�ELQGLQJ�

mid-term targets was highlighted. focusing on

VWUHQJWKHQLQJ�WKH�ĆQDQFLDO�mechanism, the development and transfer of technologies

and maintaining the momentum in relation to the Kyoto Protocol was adopted.

Geneva Ministerial Declaration notedbut not adopted.

Adoption of Kyoto Protocol setting Annex I and Annex B countries binding emission

reduction targets for the six major greenhouse gases for

2008-2012. Outlining of Kyoto mechanisms

(emissions trading, CDM, JI). Developing rules for

emissions trading and methodological work in relation to forest sinks

remain issues for future international consideration.

)DLOXUH�WR�UHVROYH�XQĆQLVKHG�Kyoto issues. The adoption of a 2-year “Buenos Aires Plan of Action” opened a SURFHVV�IRU�ĆQDOL]LQJ�WKH�

rules and operational details of the Protocol. Focus is on VWUHQJWKHQLQJ�WKH�ĆQDQFLDO�

mechanism, the development and transfer of technologies.

Resolution of technical issues with no major

agreements. Discussions focus on the adoption of the

guidelines for the preparation of national

communications by Annex I countries, capacity building, transfer of technology and

ćH[LEOH�PHFKDQLVPV�

Debates on US proposalon including carbon sinks (forests and agriculture)

and on support for developing countries to meet

reductions. Rejection of compromise positions. Failure and collapse of negotiations on Bonn

agreements.

Bush administration's rejection of KP leading US

out of KP negotiations. Consensus reached on Bonn

agreements and decisions including capacity-building

for developing countries and countries with economies in

transition. Decisions on several issues, notably the

mechanisms land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) and

compliance, remained outstanding.

Completion of Buenos Aires Plan of Action. Concern

about meeting the conditions to bring the KP into force

after US withdrawal. Agreements reached on a

package deal (the Marrakech Accords) including

operational rules accounting procedures and compliance

regime, consideration of LULUCF Principles in reporting and limited

banking of units generated by sinks under the Clean

Development Mechanism (CDM) (the extent to which carbon dioxide absorbed by carbon sinks can be counted towards the Kyoto targets).

Russia's hesitation threatening the Protocol's

entry into force after US and Australia's withdrawal.

Discussion on adequacy of developing countries

commitments.Delhi work program on

Article 6 of the Convention. Need to build on the

outcomes of the World Summit highlighted.

Decisions on the institutions and procedures of the Kyoto

Protocol and on the imple-mentation of the UNFCCC

adopted. Agreement to review national reports

submitted by non-Annex I countries. Guidelines for

reporting emissions adopted on the basis of IPCC's good

practice guidance as a reliable foundation for

reporting on changes in carbon concentrations

resulting from land-use changes and forestry due to

2005. Marrakech package completed by agreement on modalities of CDM projects

on cabon-absorbing management. COP 9 is seen

as the "forest COP".

Discussion on the framing of a new dialogue on the future

of climate change policy. Emphasis is put on both

mitigation and adaptation. Decisions adopted on

LULUCF, funding mechanisms, adaptation response measures, and

UNFCCC Article 4 on education, training and

public awareness, examining the issues of adaptation and mitigation,the needs of least developed countries (LDCs).

Post-2012 discussions started.

First COP with the Protocol's entry into force.

Montreal Action Plan set the road for Post-2012

agreement.

COP focused on Africa, most vulnerable countries,

adaptation and capacity building. 5 year Nairobi Work Program adopted.

The Nairobi Framework will provide support for

developing countries in implementing CDM projects.

Adoption of rules of procedure of the Protocol's

compliance committee.

The Bali Road Map was adopted, opeining a two-year process towards a strength-ened international climate

change agreement, including the four pillars Bali Action

plan for post 2012 and emission reduction from

deforestation. AW-LCA to discuss the Conventions'

implementation post-2012 and AW-KP for furthering

commitments were created. Discussions put into

question the common but differentiated principle ona purely historical basis, as

regards actual responsibility for emissions, particularly

from BRICS.

Negotiating schedule for 2009 post-2012 agreement LQWHQVLĆHG��3URJUHVV�ZDV�

made on a number of issues of particular importance to

developing countries, namely DGDSWDWLRQ��ĆQDQFH��

technology and REDD.

Climate change policy spurs attendance at the COP of

highest number of heads of state since the beginning of the UNFCCC. Around 115

world leaders attended the high-level segment.

Post-2012 ambitious climate agreement objectives were,

however, not achieved. Instead it produced the

Copenhagen Accord, agreeing on the long-term

goal of limiting the maximum global average temperature increase to no more than 2

degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, subject

to a review in 2015. Reluctance to adopt binding

commitments became evident, setting a new “bottom up” approach

(opposite to the previous "top-down" approach). A

number of developing countries agreed to

communicate their efforts to limit greenhouse gas

emissions every two years.

Cancun Agreements were adopted. Parties agreed on

1990-levels as base line and on IPCC's projections as reference, setting the 2C

goal to limiting temperature rise above pre-industrial

levels. A technology mechanism to boost the

development and spread of new climate-friendly

technologies making fully operational by 2012.

With the Kyoto Protocol's ĆUVW�HQJDJHPHQW�SHULRG�

coming to an end, Parties agreed a second commitment

period (2013-2020) and reached an agreement on

adopting a new binding agreement comprising all countries by 2015 to take

effect in 2020. Work begun under the Ad Hoc working

Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced

Action (ADP). A framework for the reporting of emission

reductions for both developed and developing countries was also agreed.

A timetable to adopt a new universal climate agreement

by 2015 was set out. Work under the Bali Action Plan was completed. New work towards a 2015 agreement

was concentrated under the ADP single negotiating

stream. The Doha Climate Gateway was adopted. It

included amended 2013-2020 commitments,

limited to 16% scope of global CO2 emissions.

Decisions adopted included further advancing the

Durban Platform, the Green Climate Fund and Long-Term

Finance, the Warsaw Framework for REDD+,

among other.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h i

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 4

Po z n a n

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

C a n c u n

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 8

D o h a

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

Co

ps

thro

ugh

yea

rsG

lob

al

issu

es d

iscu

ssed

Issu

es o

n a

da

pta

tio

n

D E S C R I P T I O N

In the following table we have an overview of negotiations per COPs and information about global and adaptation issues discussed.

MAPPERS:Benjamin Ooghe-Tabanou, SciencesPoKari De Pryck, SciencesPoMartina Elisa Cecchi, Density Design1LFRODV�%D\D�/DIĆWH��6FLHQFHV3R

EMAPSEMAPS (Electronic Maps to Assist Public Science) is a collborative research project funded by the European Research Council to map controversies around climate change adaptation.For more info please visit http://www.emapsproject.com/blog/objectives.

Paolo Ciuccarelli, Density DesignRichard Rodgers, UvATommaso Venturini, SciencesPo




0

0

1 0 0

2 0 0

3 0 0

4 0 0

5 0 0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

9 0

1 0 0

%

Co

ps

thro

ugh

yea

rs

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h i

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 4

Po z n a n

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

C a n c u n

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 8

D o h a

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

Katrinahurricane.

5HFRJQLWLRQ�RI�$5��ĆQGLQJ�RQ�GLVFHUQLEOH�KXPDQ�LQćXHQFH�

RYHU�FOLPDWH�V\VWHP�&RQWURYHUVLHV�RQ�HYLGHQFHIRU�DWWULEXWLRQ�ZLOO�IROORZ��

3UHVLGHQW�%XVK�UHPRYHV�86IURP�.3�

�$5��SXEOLVKHG�

-RKDQQHVEXUJ�:RUOG�6XPPLWRQ�6XVWDLQDEOHGHYHORSPHQW�

)LUP�DJUHHPHQW�RQ�HYLGHQFH�RI�WKH�UHDOLW\�DQG�WKH�RULJLQRI�FOLPDWH�FKDQJH�ZLOO�HPHUJH�LQ�WKH�$5��,3&&�UHFHLYHG�

3HDFH�1REHO�3UL]H�

3HUU\�HW�DO�UHSRUW�FODLPV�81)&&&V�HVWLPDWLRQV�IDOO�VKRUW�RQ�FRVWVRI�DGDSWDWLRQ��

&OLPDWHJDWH��,3&&�FRQWURYHUVLHV

JURZLQJ�GLVWUXVWLQ�FOLPDWH�VFLHQFH�

3KLOLSSLQHV�W\SKRRQ��6FLHQWLVWV�ZDUQ�DFWLRQV�DUH�LQVXIĆFLHQW�WR�PHHW�

WKH��&�JRDO��

7\SKRRQ�+DL\DQ��VDLG�WR�EH�WKH�VWURQJHVW�WR�KLW�3KLOOLSLQHV�$5�:*��ZDV�SXEOLVKHG�

6XESULPHV�FULVHV�


o n a d a p t a t i o n a t U N F C C C C O PsT h e d y n a m i c s o f a d a p t a t i o n c o m m i t m e n t s v i s u a l i s e d t h r o u g h U N F C C C d o c u m e n t s , E N B n e g o t i a t i o nr e p o r t s , C F U f u n d i n g s a n d w o r l d w i d e eve n t s

2 / 4

L E G E N D

U n k n o w n

S u b - S a h a ra n A f r i c a

M i d d l e E a s t a n d N o r t h A f r i c a

L a t i n A m e r i c a a n d t h e C a r i b b e a n

G l o b a l

E u r o p e a n d C e n t ra l A s i a

$VLD �DQG�3DFLĆF �

6FLHQWLĆF �HYHQWV

Po l i t i c a l eve n t s

N a t u ra l eve n t s

E N B o n a d a p t a t i o n

mill $


Hereunder, the relative importance of all adaptation related issues

in the Earth Negotiation Bulletins (ENB). It shows adaptation that if

adaptation is present in the negotiations since the beginning, it only

starts assuming greater attention since COP5 (1999) pushed by

most vulnerable countries. Attention falls in The Hague (2000) with

the controversy on US proposals on sinks, but only to rise again since

2000, reaching a maximum at New Delhi (2002) and remaining very

high until Nairobi (2006). Firmly established, adaptation becomes

less urgent, especially as the post-Kyoto debate rises.

$�WLPHOLQH�RI�UHODWHG�ZRUOGZLGH�VFLHQWLĆF��SROLWLFDO�DQG�QDWXUDO�

events which happened during the 20 years of negotiations is

displayed, along with a histogram of fundings received each year in

different geographical zones for “adaptation” projects as catalogued

by the Climate Funds Update. This histogram shows the growing

YROXPH�RI�WKH�DGDSWDWLRQ�ĆQDQFH��VWDUWLQJ�IURP��ZLWK�WKH�

RSHUDWLRQDOLVDWLRQ�RI�WKH�ĆUVW�PXOWLODWHUDO�IXQGV�IRU�DGDSWDWLRQ��7KH�

decrease observed in 2013 may depend on an incomplete data

FROOHFWLRQ�IRU�WKLV�\HDU��/RRNLQJ�DW�KRZ�WKH�ĆQDQFLQJ�IURP�WKH�

multilateral funds is divided among different regional areas, it is

possible to observe the clear predominance of sub-saharan Africa

DQG�$VLDQ�DQG�3DFLĆF�UHJLRQV�

M E T H O D S

The graph shows the visibility in each Conference of Parties (COPs)

of the 22 most active countries in the UNFCCC negotiations.

The visibility of each country is measured as the number of

paragraphs of the ENB in which the name of the country appears.

This choice is dictated by the fact that paragraphs represent the

thematic unity of the ENB (in most cases, each paragraph is devoted

to one and only one subject).

In the graph, each country is represented by a stream the size

of which is proportional to the number of paragraphs in which

the country is mentioned, and the position of which depends

on the relative visibility of the country in each of the COPs (e.g.

WKH�8�6��LV�WKH�ĆUVW�FRXQWU\�LQ�WKH�ĆUVW�FROXPQ�EHFDXVH�LW�LV�WKH�

country most often mentioned in the New York conference).

+XUULFDQH�6DQG\�KLW�1<�LQ�2FWREHU��MXVW�EHIRUH�WKH�&23��

7\SKRRQ�%RSKD�KLW�3KLOLSSLQHV�GXULQJ�WKH�&23��VDLG�WREH�WKH�VWURQJHVW�




L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City

M E T E R O F T H ED I S C U S S I O NTotal numberof paragraphsin the UNFCCCdocuments

TO P I C ’ SI M P O RTA N C ENumber of topic’smentions in the paragraphsranked in decreasingorder COP by COP

Topic #1

Topic #1

Topic #1Topic #2

Topic #2

Topic #2Topic #3

Topic #3

Topic #3


o n a d a p t a t i o n a t U N F C C C C O PsE vo l u t i o n o f t h e d i f f e r e n t t h e m e s d i s c u s s e d d u r i n g e a c h C O P s i n E N B n e g o t i a t i o n r e p o r t s

3 / 4

M E T H O D S

The graph shows the visibility in each Conference Of Parties (COPs)

RI�WKH��PDMRU�WRSLF�RI�WKH�QHJRWLDWLRQ��(DFK�WKHPH�LV�GHĆQHG�E\�D�

dictionary of several expressions that have been automatically and

manually extracted from the text of the ENB. The expressions are

grouped to form themes on the basis of their tendency to co-occur

together in the same paragraphs.

The visibility of each theme is measured as the number of

paragraphs of the ENB in which at least two of the expression

GHĆQLQJ�WKH�WKHPH�DSSHDU��7KLV�FKRLFH�LV�GLFWDWHG�E\�WKH�IDFW�WKDW�

paragraphs represent the thematic unity of the ENB (in most cases,

each paragraph is devoted to one and only one subject).

In the graph, each theme is represented by a stream the size of

which is proportional to the number of paragraphs in which the

theme is mentioned, and the position of which depends on the

relative visibility of the theme in each of the COPs (e.g. “Adaptation

)XQGLQJ�DQG�HTXLW\ë�LV�WKH�ĆUVW�WKHPH�LQ�WKH�ĆUVW�FROXPQ�EHFDXVH�LV�

the theme most often mentioned in the New York conference).

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h i

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i C O P 1 4

Po z n a n

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

C a n c u n

C O P 1 7

D u r b a nC O P 1 8

D o h a

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

Energy + technology transfer

Models and IPCC

Transport sector

Adaptation funding & equity

GHGs & emission measures

Land use & forests

Vulnerability + adaptation action

Kyoto protocol

Social & environmental impacts

Compliance enforcement

CDM + carbon offsets

Post-Kyoto and Redd


Models and IPCC

Transport sector



Land use & forests



Kyoto protocol




Models and IPCC

Transport sector



Land use & forests



Kyoto protocol



Redd + post-Kyoto


Transport sector



Land use & forests



Kyoto protocol



Redd + post-Kyoto

Models and IPCC





o n a d a p t a t i o n a t U N F C C C C O PsE vo l u t i o n o f c o u n t r y p a r t e c i p a t i o n s d u r i n g e a c h C O P s i n E N B n e g o t i a t i o n r e p o r t s

4 / 4

L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City


C O U N T R Y ’ SAC T I V I T Y I NT H E D I S C U S S I O NNumber of country’smentions in the paragraphsranked in decreasingorder COP by COP

Country #1

Country #1

Country #1Country #2

Country #2


Country #3

Country #3


The diagram shows the number of intervention in the negotiations of

the 21 most active countries of the UNFCCC debate (as reported in

WKH�(DUWK�1HJRWLDWLRQ�%XOOHWLQ��7KH�VL]H�RI�WKH�ćRZ�LV�SURSRUWLRQDO�

to the number of paragraphs of the ENB reports in which the name

of each of the top 21 countries is mentioned. The data are calculated

&23�E\�&23��7KH�ćRZV�DUH�UDQNHG�E\�WKH�QXPEHU�RI�PHQWLRQV��WKH�

KLJKHVW�ćRZ�IRU�HDFK�&23�FRUUHVSRQG�WR�WKH�FRXQWU\�PRVW�DFWLYH�LQ�

that COP, the lowest the least active country). The diagram shows a

remarkable stability. Most countries tends to maintain their relative

rank throughout the 19 COPs. There are however a few notable

exceptions that we’ll see in the next graph.

M E T H O D S

The graph shows the visibility in each Conference of Parties (COPs)

of the 22 most active countries in the UNFCCC negotiations. The

visibility of each country is measured as the number of paragraphs

of the ENB in which the name of the country appears. This choice is

dictated by the fact that paragraphs represent the thematic unity of

the ENB (in most cases, each paragraph is devoted to one and

only one subject).

In the graph, each country is represented by a stream the size

of which is proportional to the number of paragraphs in which the

country is mentioned, and the position of which depends on the

relative visibility of the country in each of the COPs (e.g. the U.S.

LV�WKH�ĆUVW�FRXQWU\�LQ�WKH�ĆUVW�FROXPQ�EHFDXVH�LW�LV�WKH�FRXQWU\

most often mentioned in the New York conference).

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 1 4

Po z n a n C O P 1 8

D o h aUnited States

United States

United States

United States

China

China

China

China

Europe

Europe

Europe

Europe

Philippines

Australia

Australia

Australia AustraliaJapan

Japan

Japan

Germany

Saudi ArabiaSaudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia

Canada

Canada

Canada

Kuwait

India

India

Tavalu

Tavalu

New Zealand

New ZealandNew Zealand

New Zealand

Russian Federation

Switzerland

Switzerland

Switzerland

Mexico

Mexico

Philippines

Philippines

Kuwait

Brazil

Brazil

Brazil Brazil

Argentina

Argentina

Argentina

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

Colombia

Mexico

Mexico

India

India

Kuwait

Philippines

Philippines

Bolivia

Bolivia

Norway

Norway

Norway

Norway

South Africa

Mexico

Bolivia

BoliviaTavalu

Bolivia

Bolivia

Russian Federation

Russian Federation

Argentina

Kuwait

Kuwait

Germany

Russian Federation

South Africa

South Africa

South Africa

Germany

Germany

Switzerland

Japan

Canada

Saudi Arabia

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h iC O P 1 6

C a n c u n




L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Topic #1

Topic #1

Topic #1Topic #2

Topic #2

Topic #2Topic #3

Topic #3

Topic #3



3 / 4


The place of vulnerability and adaptation policy as a focus

negotiations in the UNFCCC has clearly evolved over the COPs.

Whereas it was present but not at the core of negotiations in the

early COPs focused on reaching an agreement on a binding

framework to reduce GHGs emissions leading to the 1997 Kyoto

3URWRFRO��.3��DQG�LWV�ćH[LEOH�PHFKDQLVPV��WKH�LVVXH�FRQVWDQWO\�JUHZ�

from Marrakech (2000) to Buenos Aires (2004). The “COPs of

adaptation”, New Delhi (2002) and Buenos Aires (2004) will enshrine

the recognition that vulnerability and adaptation measures are a

mainstream issue in the UNFCCC process, leading through Montreal

(2005) and Nairobi (2006) to the end of the controversy on

adaptation vs. mitigation.

This became evident in the 2007 Bali’s four pillars including

adaptation, alongside with mitigation, technology transfer and

ĆQDQFH�LQ�D�VKDUHG�YLVLRQ�IRU�ORQJ�WHUP�FRRSHUDWLYH�DFWLRQ��6LQFH�

Poznan, adaptation action falls as a focus of attention and concern.

2Q�WKH�RQH�KDQG��WKH�&RSHQKDJHQ�IDLOXUH�UHFRQĆJXUHG�SULRULWLHV�IRU�

WKH�IROORZLQJ�&23V��IRFXVHG�RQ�WKH�GHĆQLWLRQ�RI�D�QHZ�SRVW��

universal Protocol for reducing emissions. On the other hand, the

recent COPs saw the growth of debates on funding, as well as the

increasing importance of social justice dimensions of climate change

around the loss and damage concept.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h i

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i C O P 1 4

Po z n a n

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

C a n c u n

C O P 1 7


D o h a

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n


Kyoto protocol




Post-Kyoto and Redd



Kyoto protocol



Transport sector



Kyoto protocol



Redd + post-Kyoto



Kyoto protocol



Redd + post-Kyoto




L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Topic #1

Topic #1

Topic #1Topic #2

Topic #2

Topic #2Topic #3

Topic #3

Topic #3



3 / 4


Adaptation and equity related issues have always been high on the

negotiations agenda. But not always at the same degree. Developed

countries’ responsibility for adverse effects of climate change was a

major issue during the early negotiations on the Convention (before

1995). If political compromises will downplay adaptation and focus will

be limited to assessing climate change impacts and country vulnerability

GXULQJ�WKH�ĆUVW�&23V��YXOQHUDEOH�FRXQWULHV�EDUJDLQ�VWUDWHJ\�ZLOO�PDQDJH�

to include adaptation funding provisions in the Kyoto Protocol (1995).

Debates about the mechanisms to ensure this, reached critical levels at

Hague COP (2000), with strong disagreements on the type of fund, its

funding modalities and competences. With growing concern about the

Parties’ ability to meet the main convention’s objective (mitigation),

vulnerability, impacts and adaptation action and funding debates

constantly grew from Marrakech (2000) to Bali (2007), becoming since

then a mainstream issue. The New Delhi (2002) and Buenos Aires

(2004) COPs will thus be known as the “COPs of adaptation”. In the

aftermath of several extreme weather events, Montreal (2005) marked

the end of the narrative of invulnerability in developed countries, and

with it, the controversy on adaptation vs mitigation was "closed".

Discussions moved since Nairobi (2006) toward the operationalisation

of funds. with growing evidence on climate change. Since then, and

VSHFLDOO\�DIWHU�WKH�&RSHQKDJHQ�IDLOXUH��WKH�WKH�DJHQGD�ZDV�UHFRQĆJXUHG�

by to raising issues of concern and debate during the following COPs :

WKH�GHĆQLWLRQ�RI�D�QHZ�SRVW��XQLYHUVDO�3URWRFRO�IRU�UHGXFLQJ�

emissions, the growing recognition of the social dimensions of climate

change impacts, and the progressive enshrinement of the loss and

damage approach.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h i

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i C O P 1 4

Po z n a n

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

C a n c u n

C O P 1 7


D o h a

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n




Post-Kyoto and Redd







Redd + post-Kyoto




Redd + post-Kyoto




L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Topic #1

Topic #1

Topic #1Topic #2

Topic #2

Topic #2Topic #3

Topic #3

Topic #3



3 / 4


While both adaptation and mitigation are core elements of the

UNFCCC, mitigation has had priority on the agenda from the beginning

of the UNFCCC negotiations. Talks started in Berlin (1995) with the aim

of reaching an agreement on a binding framework to reduce GHGs

emissions, which culminated with the adoption of the 1997 Kyoto

3URWRFRO��.3��DQG�LWV�ćH[LEOH�PHFKDQLVP��6LQFH�WKHQ�WKH�LVVXH

of emission mitigation was less discussed within the UNFCCC arena

and adaptation gained visibility. Debate mostly evolved around technical

and practical questions regarding the operationalization of the

agreement.Three events bring back mitigation to a certain level of

attention: the US refusal to ratify the Protocol (Bonn 20 01) Russia’s

hesitation to enter the KP after US and Australia's withdrawal (New

Delhi 2003); and its entering into force following the 55th country

UDWLĆFDWLRQ��0RQWUHDO��6LQFH�7KH�+DJXH��GHEDWHV�RQ�86�

proposal to include carbon sinks (forests and agriculture) as well as on

support for developing countries to meet reductions became the major

issue. In this context, the mechanisms land-use change and forestry

(LULUCF), CDM projects, and compliance will raise strong debates.

Buenos Aires (2004) and Bali (2007) COP will see agreement

and progressive stabilisation of issues pertaining to technology transfer

or fuel emission reductions, CDM and forestry management projects

and the constant rise of REDD and post-Kyoto debates.

6LQFH�&RSHQKDQJHQ��PLWLJDWLRQ�LV�GHĆQLWHO\�EDFN�WR�WKH�IURQW�LVVXHV

with the expiration of the KP and a renewed concern on energyand

technology transfer.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 8

N e w D e l h i

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i C O P 1 4

Po z n a n

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 6

C a n c u n

C O P 1 7


D o h a

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

Land use & forests

Kyoto protocol



Post-Kyoto and Redd


Land use & forests


Kyoto protocol


Land use & forests


Kyoto protocol


Redd + post-Kyoto

Land use & forests


Kyoto protocol


Redd + post-Kyoto






4 / 4

L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Country #1

Country #1


Country #2


Country #3

Country #3


Observing the map it is possible to observe the rise of the

Philippines and Bolivia, two countries of the South of the Word

who has take more and more of importance in the latest COPs.

,Q�SDUWLFXODU��%ROLYLD��ZKR�QHYHU�UDQNHG�YHU\�YHU\�KLJK�LQ�WKH�ĆUVW

15 COPs) has a dramatic rise in visibility starting from COP16

in Cancun where it takes the lead on the question of ‘loss and

damage’ and REDD. The trajectory of the Philippines is also very

LQWHUHVWLQJ��6WDUWLQJ�YHU\�KLJK�LQ�WKH�ĆUVW�&23V��WK�SODFH�LQ�1HZ�

York INC11 and 6th place in Berlin COP1), the Philippines lose

visibility in the following COPs, but regains the 4th position in Doha

COP18 and Warsaw COP19.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 1 4


D o h a

Philippines

Philippines

Philippines

Philippines

Philippines

Bolivia

Bolivia

Bolivia

Bolivia

Bolivia

Bolivia

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 0 8


C a n c u n






4 / 4

L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Country #1

Country #1


Country #2


Country #3

Country #3


$�IHZ�FRXQWULHV�KDYH�SXQFWXDO�VSLNHV�LQ�YLVLELOLW\�LQ�VRPH�VSHFLĆF�

COPs. Mexico scores relatively low for most of the negotiations,

but jumps to the 5th position in the COP16 that it hosted in Cancun.

Even more interesting is the trajectory of Tuvalu. Starting from the

.\RWR�&23��WKH�WLQ\�SDFLĆF�LVODQG�KDV�HQWHUHG�DQG�UHPDLQHG�LQ�WKH�

top20 of the most visible countries of UNFCCC (which is in itself

a remarkable results). But Tuvalu reaches the 13th position in

Poznan COP14, the 9th position in Copenhague COP15 and 12th

in Cancun COP16. Argentina has a particularly discontinuous

trajectories, peaking in the top10 in COP4 Buenos Aires (9th

position), COP10 Buenos Aires (7th position) and COP17 Durban

(8th position).

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 1 4


D o h a

United States

China

Tavalu

Tavalu

Mexico

Mexico

Argentina

Argentina

Argentina

Mexico

Mexico

Mexico

Tavalu

Argentina

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 0 8


C a n c u n

Tavalu






4 / 4

L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Country #1

Country #1


Country #2


Country #3

Country #3


Observing the diagram it is possible to observe the disengagement

of the Canada from the climate negotiations. Scoring very high

LQ�WKH�ĆUVW�&23V��VWDUWLQJ�IURP�%HUOLQ�&23��&DQDGD�UHPDLQV�LQ�WKH�

top 6 until Bali COP13), Canada falls suddenly starting from COP14

Poznan in 2008. It is worth to remember that in 2006 Canada

changed its Prime Minister (with Stephen Harper entering

LQWR�RIĆFH��DQG�WKDW�LQ��&DQDGD�OHIW�WKH�.\RWR�3URWRFRO�

A steep decline can be observed also for Germany after COP2

Geneva, but it this declined is explained by the increasing

importance of the European Community as the entity

representing all European nations in negotiations.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 1 4


D o h a

Germany

Canada

Canada

Canada

Germany

Germany

Germany

Canada

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 0 8


C a n c u n






4 / 4

L E G E N D

C O P # N

City

C O P # N

City C O P # N

City



Country #1

Country #1


Country #2


Country #3

Country #3


The top 10 of the most active countries is stably occupied by a small

group of countries: United States, China, Europe, Australia, Japan.

In particular China never score lower than 3rd position; Europe

never below the 4th position and Unites States never below

the 6th position.

1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 5 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 7 2 0 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 32 0 1 2 2 0 1 3

C O P 0 2

G e n ev a

C O P 0 3

Kyo t o

C O P 0 4

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 6

T h e H a g u e

C O P 1 0

Buenos Aires

C O P 0 9

M i l a n

C O P 1 1

M o n t r e a l

C O P 1 2

N a i r o b i

C O P 1 3

B a l i

C O P 1 5

Copenhagen

C O P 1 7

D u r b a n

C O P 1 9

Wa r s aw

I N C 1 1

N e w Yo r k

C O P 0 7

M a r ra ke c h

C O P 0 5

B o n n

C O P 1 4


D o h aUnited States

United States

United States

United States

China

China

China

China

Europe

Europe

Europe

Europe

Philippines

Australia

Australia

Australia AustraliaJapan

Japan

Japan

Japan

C O P 0 1

B e r l i n

COP 06bis

B o n n

C O P 0 8


C a n c u n

Tommaso Venturini

Tommaso Venturini

An interactive version of this visualization is available here: http://jcml.fr/~jacomyal/emaps-201401-viz/

Tommaso Venturini

An interactive version of this visualization is available here: http://jcml.fr/~jacomyal/emaps-201401-viz/

VIE

TN

AM

A D A P T A T I O N A I D A M O U N T ( M I L . $ )

T R A D I T I O N A L A I D A M O U N T ( M I L . $ )

R E C I P I E N TC O U N T R I E S

8 0 0

7 0 0

6 0 0

5 0 0

3 0 0

2 0 0

1 0 0

2 5 ’ 0 0 0

1 - 4

2 0 ’ 0 0 0

1 5 ’ 0 0 0

1 0 ’ 0 0 0

5 ’ 0 0 0

IND

ON

ES

IA

BA

NG

LA

DE

SH

KE

NY

A

PH

ILIP

PIN

ES

CA

MB

OD

IA

TH

AIL

AN

D

EG

YP

T

ET

HIO

PIA

PA

KIS

TA

N

CA

ME

RO

ON

SO

UT

H A

FR

ICA

SE

RB

IA

BO

LIV

IA

GA

BO

N

R.D

. C

ON

GO

MO

RO

CC

O

CH

INA

PE

RU

DJ

IBO

UT

I

TA

NZ

AN

IA

MO

ZA

MB

IQU

E

IND

IA

JO

RD

AN

AF

GH

AN

IST

AN

IRA

Q

NIG

ER

IA

TU

RK

EY

5 - 8

9 - 1 2

1 3 - 1 6

VIE

TN

AM

R E C I P I E N TC O U N T R I E S

8 0 0

7 0 0

6 0 0

5 0 0

3 0 0

2 0 0

1 0 0

2 5 ’ 0 0 0

N U M B E R O F D O N O R C O U N T R I E S

2 0 ’ 0 0 0

1 5 ’ 0 0 0

1 0 ’ 0 0 0

5 ’ 0 0 0

IND

ON

ES

IA

BA

NG

LA

DE

SH

KE

NY

A

PH

ILIP

PIN

ES

CA

MB

OD

IA

TH

AIL

AN

D

EG

YP

T

ET

HIO

PIA

PA

KIS

TA

N

CA

ME

RO

ON

SO

UT

H A

FR

ICA

SE

RB

IA

BO

LIV

IA

GA

BO

N

R.D

. C

ON

GO

MO

RO

CC

O

CH

INA

PE

RU

DJ

IBO

UT

I

TA

NZ

AN

IA

MO

ZA

MB

IQU

E

IND

IA

JO

RD

AN

AF

GH

AN

IST

AN

IRA

Q

NIG

ER

IA

TU

RK

EY

T 1 C O U N T R I E S T H A T H A V E W O N T H E M O S T A D A P T A T I O N A I DA c o m p a r i s o n w i t h t r a d i t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t a i d .

The data extracted from the OECD StatExtracts database (stats.oecd.org) collects general Official Development Assistance (ODA) and is reported by OECD member countries. We identified aid that was labelled through the RioMarkers and selected only projects that had been categorised with adaptation aid as their principal objective. As the RioMarker “adaptation” was implemented in 2010, we have only used data beginning from that year

in order to identify adaptation-related projects.We ranked countries according to the amount of adaptation aid committed to them per million in USD (adjusted for inflation) and then contrasted this with the top 20 recipients of ODA. Most countries receive adaptation aid and ODA, such as Vietnam and Bangladesh. Whilst India and Turkey have received both, the levels of adaptation aid have meant they do not appear in the top 20 list of adaptation champions.

T H E G E O P O L I T I C S O F A D A P T A T I O N F U N D S

0

50

0

10

00

15

00

20

00

25

000

50

0

10

00

15

00

20

00

25

000

50

0

10

00

15

00

20

00

25

00 0

50

0

10

00

15

00

20

00

25

00

U K J A P A N

C A N A D A

S W E D E N

I R E L A N D

S W I T Z E R L A N D

S O U T H K O R E A

F I N L A N D

N O R W A Y

F R A N C E

I C E L A N D

N E T H E R L A N D S

D E N M A R K

A U S T R A L I A

G E R M A N Y

S P A I NE U

I N S T I T U T I O N S

G R E E C E

C Z E C H R E P U B L I C

N E W Z E A L A N D

A U S T R I A

I T A LY

L U X E M B O U R G

B E L G I U M

U S A

P O R T U G A L

m o r e t h a n 5 % 5 - 4 % 4 - 2 % 2 - 0 %A D A P T A T I O N

A I D I N O D A

A M O U N T O FD E V E L O P M E N T

A I D F O R D O N O RC O U N T R I E S

( M I L . $ )

T 2 C O N T R I B U T I O N O F A D A P T A T I O N I N D O N O R C O U N T R I E S ' D E V E L O P M E N T A I DT h e p e r c e n t a g e o f a d a p t a t i o n a i d w i t h i n O D A , t h e r a n k i n g o f d o n o r s a m o n g t h e O E C D m e m b e r c o u n t r i e s

a n d t h e t o t a l a m o u n t o f O D A e a c h c o u n t r y d o n a t e s .

The data extracted from the OECD StatExtracts database (stats.oecd.org) collects general Official Development Assistance (ODA) and is reported by OECD member countries. We identified aid that was labelled through the RioMarkers and selected only proj-ects that had been categorised with adaptation aid as their principal objective. As the RioMarker “adapta-tion” was implemented in 2010, we have only used data beginning from that year in order to identify

adaptation-related projects.

We first grouped donor countries into four categories according to the share of adaptation aid within their ODA. After which we then visualised the number of countries in each category and the total amount of ODA for each vcountry as well as the EU institutions.


G E R M A N Y

W O M E N ' S E Q U A L I T Y

W A T E R

U R B A N D E V E L O P M E N

T R A D E

R U R A L D E V E L O P M E N T

R O A D T R A N S P O R T

E D U C A T I O N

M U L T I S E C T O R A I D

M A T E R I A L R E L I E F A S S I S T A N C E A N D S E R V I C E S

F O R E S T R Y

F O O D

F L O O D P R E V E N T I O N / C O N T R O L

F I S H E R Y R E S E A R C H / D E V E L O P M E N T

E N V I R O N M E N T A L

D I S A S T E R P R E V E N T I O N

C I V I L S O C I E T Y

B I O S P H E R E P R O T E C T I O N

B I O - D I V E R S I T Y

B A S I C D R I N K I N G W A T E R S U P P LY

A G R I C U L T U R E

I C E L A N D

I R E L A N D

S O C I A L M I T I G A T I O N O F H I V / A I D S

R E S E A R C H / S C I E N T I F I C I N S T .P U B L I C S E C T O R

L I V E S T O C K

L E G A L A N D J U D I C I A L D E V E L O P M E N T

H U M A N R I G H T SF O O D

D E C E N T R A L I S A T I O N

B A S I C N U T R I T I O N

N O R W A Y

S O C I A L / W E L F A R E S E R V I C E S

P O W E R G E N E R A T I O N

H Y D R O - E L E C T R I C P O W E R P L A N T S

E N E R G Y

S P A I N

S A N I T A T I O N

R E C O N S T R U C T I O N R E L I E F

P E A C E K E E P I N G O P E R A T I O N S

A U S T R A L I A

R I V E R B A S I N S D E V E L O P M E N T

A U S T R I A

C A N A D A

S O L A R E N E R G Y

E N E R G Y

B I O M A S S

D E N M A R K

E U I N S T I T U T I O N S

F R A N C E

F U E L W O O D / C H A R C O A L

E D U C A T I O N

I T A LY

J A P A N

S O U T H K O R E A


S W E D E N


U N I T E D K I N G D O M

B E L G I U M

F I N L A N D

L U X E M B O U R G


N E W Z E A L A N D

G R E E C EP O R T U G A L

U N I T E D S T A T E S

5 1 0 1 5 2 0 2 5 3 0 3 5 4 0 4 5 5 0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

8 0

A U S T R I A

B E L G I U M

C A N A D A

C Z E

D E N M A R K

E U I N S T I T U T I O N S

F I N L A N D

G E R M A N Y

G R E E C E

I C E L A N D

I R E L A N D

I T A LY

J A P A N

K O R E A

L U X E M B O U R G


N E W Z E A L A N D

N O R W A Y

P T

S P A I N

S W E D E N


U N I T E D K I N G D O M

U S A

A U S T R A L I A

F R A N C E

N ° O F R E C I P I E N TC O U T R I E S

N ° O FP U R P O S E S

T 3 C O N C E N T R A T I O N A N D S P E C I A L I Z A T I O N O F A D A P T A T I O N A I D .T h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d f r a g m e n t a t i o n o f a i d b y t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e f u n d i n g .

T h e c o n c e n t r a t i o n a n d f r a g m e n t a t i o n o f a i d b y t h e n u m b e r o f r e c i p i e n t c o u n t r i e s .

The data extracted from the OECD StatExtracts database (stats.oecd.org) collects general Official Development Assistance (ODA) and is reported by OECD member countries.

We identified aid that was labelled through the RioMarkers and selected only projects that had been categorised with adaptation aid as their principal objective. As the RioMarker “adaptation” was

implemented in 2010, we have only used data beginning from that year in order to identify adaptation-related projects.

We have extracted the number of recipient countries and the number of purpose names for each donor country. On a scatterplot we placed each donor country according to the number of recipient (x-axis) and which sectors and purposes the aid went to (y-axis). The size

of each node represents the amount of money given by each donor country.

The second map represents the amount of money being spent on each sector or purpose by every donor country. We took out the purpose names that had a total amount of less than $2 million and were used by less than three countries. We colored the 7 most important sectors.


A M O U N T O F M O N E Y S P E N T O N E A C H S E C T O RB Y E V E R Y D O N O R C O U N T R Y

( t h e h e i g h t o f n o d e s d e p e n d so n t h e a m o u n t o f m o n e y s p e n t / r e c i v e d )

T 4 T H E S P E C I A L I Z A T I O N O F D O N O R C O U N T R I E S B Y N E G O T I A T I N G G R O U P S I N T H E U N I T E D N A T I O N S F R A M E W O R K C O N V E N T I O N O NC L I M A T E C H A N G E ( U N F C C C )7 K H � D I Ć Q L W L H V � R I � G R Q R U � F R X Q W U L H V � D Q G � U H F L S L H Q W � Q H J R W L D W L Q J � J U R X S V � � G H S H Q G L Q J � R Q � W K H � ć R Z � R I �a d a p t a t i o n a i d c o m m i t t e d t o t h e m e m b e r s o f t h e s e g r o u p s .

6 0 +

6 0 - 4 1

4 0 - 2 1

2 0 - 1

N U M B E R O F N A T I O N SI N G R O U P

G 7 7

C O A L I T I O N F O R R A I N F O R E S T

N A T I O N SL E A S T

D E V E L O P E DC O U N T R I E S

A L L I A N C E O F S M A L L

I S L A N D S T A T E S

A F R I C A NG R O U P

A U S T R I AB E L G I U M

L E A G U E O F A R A B S T A T E S

E N V I R O N M E N T A L I N T E G R I T Y G R O U P

O R G A N I Z A T I O N O FP E T R O L E U M E X P O R T I N G

C O U N T R I E S

C E N T R A L A S I A ,C A U C A S U S

A N D M O L D O V A

U M B R E L L AG R O U P

F I N L A N D

G R E E C E

I C E L A N D

I R E L A N D

I T A LY

K O R E A

N E W Z E A L A N D

U N I T E D S T A T E S

L U X E M B O U R G

G E R M A N Y

N O R W A Y


D E N M A R K

A U S T R A L I A

J A P A N


S W E D E N

E U I N S T .F R A N C EU N I T E D K I N G D O M

C A N A D A


S P A I N

The data extracted from the OECD StatExtracts database (stats.oecd.org) collects general Official Development Assistance (ODA) and is reported by OECD member countries. We identified aid that was labelled through the RioMarkers and selected only projects that had been categorised with adaptation aid as their principal objective. As the RioMarker “adaptation” was implemented in 2010, we have only used data beginning from that year in order to identify adaptation-related projects.

We grouped the adaptation aid of every donor country committed to particular UNFCCC negotiating groups, and represented both donor countries and recipient groups as nodes. We used the spatialization software Gephi, which through a force-vectors algorithm, attributes a position to each node by simulating a system of physical forces in which nodes are attributed a repellent force that drives them apart, while the edges work as spring bounding nodes pulling them together. Once the balance of forces is

reached, the distance amongst the nodes becomes meaningful: two nodes are closer the more they are connected to the same neighbors.

Here both the nodes and edges are sized by the cummulative amount of committed adaptation money. One should be careful to the fact that recipient countries belong to several groups, thus the money received by each country is double-counted in each group they belong to.


E N V I R O N M E N T A L P O L I C Y A N D A D M I N .

C A P E V E R D E

D I S A S T E R P R E V E N T I O NA N D P R E P A R E D N E S S

E T H I O P I A

B I O S P H E R E P R O T E C T I O N

R U R A L D E V E L O P M E N T

A G R I C U L T U R A LW A T E R R E S O U R C E S

W E S T B A N K & G A Z A S T R I P

B I O - D I V E R S I T Y

E N V I R O N M E N T A L E D U C A T I O N / T R A I N I N G

B O L I V I A

C O N G O , D E M . R E P.

I N D O N E S I A

F L O O D P R E V E N T I O N/ C O N T R O L

L A O S


A N D B A S I C S A N I T A T I O N

S E N E G A L

A G R I C U L T U R A L D E V E L O P M E N T

W A T E R R E S O U R C E SP R O T E C T I O N

K E N Y A

M A L A W I

U G A N D A

B A N G L A D E S H

M O Z A M B I Q U E

V I E T N A M

L I V E S T O C K

C H A D

C O O K I S L A N D S

W A T E R R E S O U R C E S P O L I C Y / A D M I N . M G M T

T R A D E P O L I C Y

N E P A L

S O L O M O N I S L A N D S

F O R E S T R Y P O L I C Y & A D M I N . M A N A G E M E N T

S O C I A L / W E L F A R ES E R V I C E S

C H I N A

R E C O N S T R U C T I O NR E L I E F A N D

R E H A B I L I T A T I O N

H A I T I

I N D I A

P E R U

E N V I R O N M E N T A LR E S E A R C H

A G R I C U L T U R A L P O L I C Y& A D M I N . M G M T

R I V E R B A S I N SD E V E L O P M E N T

B U R K I N A F A S O

C A M B O D I A

W A T E R S U P P LY & S A N I T .

C A M E R O O NC O M O R O S

E G Y P T

E N E R G Y P O L I C Y A N D A D M I N . M A N A G E M E N T

J O R D A N

M A L I

M A U R I T A N I A

M O R O C C O

T A N Z A N I A

B E N I N

F I S H E R Y R E S E A R C H

B R A Z I L

M U L T I S E C T O R E D U C A T I O N / T R A I N I N G

R E C I P I E N T C O U N T R I E S

I S S U E

C H I L E

C O T E D ' I V O I R E

E C U A D O R

M A D A G A S C A R

M E X I C O

N I G E R

A G R I C U L T U R A L R E S E A R C H

S O U T H A F R I C A

T U N I S I A

M U L T I S E C T O R A I D

A G R I C U L T U R A L L A N D R E S O U R C E S

M U L T I S E C T O R A I DF O R B A S I C S O C . S E R V .

C O L O M B I A

M Y A N M A R

P H I L I P P I N E S

D E M O C R A T I C P A R T I C I P A T I O N A N D C I V I L S O C I E T Y

U R B A ND E V E L O P M E N T

G E O R G I A

A G R I C U L T U R A L F I N A N C I A L

S E R V I C E S

A G R I C U L T U R A LE D U C A T I O N / T R A I N I N G

A L B A N I A

M A C E D O N I A , F Y R

S E R B I A

P O W E R G E N E R A T I O N /R E N E W A B L E S O U R C E S

B U R U N D I

F I J I

S A N I T A T I O NF O R E S T R Y

D E V E L O P M E N T

F O R E S T R Y E D U C A T I O N / T R A I N I N G

W A T E R S U P P LY

M A T E R I A L R E L I E FA S S I S T A N C E

A N D S E R V I C E S

D J I B O U T I


G A M B I AG H A N A

K I R I B A T I

L E S O T H O

P A K I S T A N

P A R A G U A Y

S A M O A

T H A I L A N D

T O G O

A Z E R B A I J A N

G U A T E M A L A

H O N D U R A S

M O N G O L I A

N A M I B I A

P A P U A N E W G U I N E A

T I M O R - L E S T E

Z A M B I A

Z I M B A B W E

F O O D C R O P P R O D U C T I O N

A G R I C U L T U R A LS E R V I C E S

B A S I CN U T R I T I O N

H U M A N R I G H T S

C U B A

E L S A L V A D O R

D E C E N T R A L I S A T I O N A N D S U P P O R T T O

S U B N A T I O N A L G O V T .

N I C A R A G U A

P U B L I C S E C T O R P O L I C Y A N D

A D M . M A N A G E M E N T

A G R I C U L T U R A L I N P U T S

R W A N D A

B O T S W A N A

N I U E

S O M A L I A

T O N G A

T U V A L U

V A N U A T U

A F G H A N I S T A N

B H U T A N

F O O D A I D

G U I N E A

N A U R U

P O W E R G E N E R A T . /N O N - R E N E W A B L E S O U R C E S

S I T E P R E S E R V A T I O N

E M E R G E N C Y F O O D A I D

A G R I C U L T U R A LE X T E N S I O N

R O A D T R A N S P O R T

R E P R O D U C T I V EH E A L T H C A R E

N O R T H K O R E A

M A R S H A L L I S L A N D S

M I C R O N E S I A , F E D . S T A T E S

T 5 T H E A D A P T A T I O N A I D R E C E I V I N G C O U N T R I E S A N D T H E I R F A V O R I T EI S S U E S T O A T T R A C T A D A P T A T I O N F U N D I N G .7 K H � D I Ć Q L W L H V � R I � U H F L S L H Q W � F R X Q W U L H V � Z L W K � S X U S R V H � Q D P H V � � G H S H Q G L Q J � R Q � W K H � ć R Z � R I �a d a p t a t i o n a i d c o m m i t t e d t o t h e m u n d e r t h a t p u r p o s e n a m e .

The data extracted from the OECD StatExtracts database (stats.oecd.org) collects general Official Development Assistance (ODA) and is reported by OECD member countries. We identified aid that was labelled through the RioMarkers and selected only projects that had been categorised with adaptation aid as their principal objective. As the RioMarker “adaptation” was implemented in 2010, we have only used data beginning from that year in order to identify adaptation-related projects.

We grouped the adaptation funding committed to every donor country by purpose names used to label this aid, and represented both recipient countries and sectors (or purposes) as nodes. We used the spatialization software Gephi, which through a force-vectors algorithm, attributes a position to each node by simulating a system of physical forces in which nodes are attributed a repellent force that drives them apart, while the edges work as spring bounding nodes pulling them together. Once the balance of forces is reached,

the distance amongst the nodes becomes meaningful: two nodes are closer the more they are connected to the same neighbors

Here both the nodes and edges are sized by the cummulative amount of committed adaptation funding.


A PDF combined with PDFGarden - EMAPS

Documents

Transcript of A PDF combined with PDFGarden - EMAPS