In August 2010, floodwaters swamped one fifth of Pakistan.[1]  Twenty million people fled their homes[2] to escape rivers swollen by torrential monsoon rains.[3]  Pakistan’s lead climate negotiator speculated that this perfect storm, which produced twelve feet of rainfall within one week (compared to a norm of three feet per year), demonstrated the devastating effects of climate change on vulnerable developing countries.[4]  Going forward, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) predicts extreme heat and rains akin to those in Pakistan will become increasingly frequent.[5]  A recent report issued by the International Energy Agency suggests that global entrenchment of carbon-intensive energy infrastructure could cause irreversible climate change within five years.[6]  The failure to extend or replace the obligatory emissions reductions for willing countries, contained in the Kyoto Protocol,[7] heightens the risk that we will hit the point of no return.  Consequently, Pakistan will not be the last tragedy on this scale.  Further climate change cannot be avoided[8] and will cause Pakistan-type devastation again.[9]

As the likelihood of an imminent successor to the Kyoto Protocol dims,[10] the international community should focus on adapting to a changing climate.  The policy of adaptation attempts to minimize the deleterious effects of climate change[11] by strengthening vulnerable countries’ capacity to withstand the heavy rains, flooding, extended drought, or other extreme weather that will become more common with continuing climate change.[12]  An emblematic proposal for an adaptation project in Tanzania addresses specific effects of climate change by raising and rehabilitating sea walls, improving flood and storm drainage systems, and bolstering drinking water infrastructure.[13]  It also addresses more nebulous consequences by including transfers of technology to make livelihoods more resilient and improves coastal-area management.[14]

Traditionally, the international body addressing climate change, the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (“UNFCCC”), has neglected the issue of adaptation.[15]  Instead, the UNFCCC focused on mitigation measures to reduce carbon emissions––which appeal to developed countries[16]––and starved adaptation of needed financial resources.[17]  Developed countries have not taken the initiative apart from the UNFCCC because adaptation projects do provide the same opportunities for financial gain as mitigation.[18] Insufficient and poorly coordinated funding for adaptation evidences the glaring failure by the international community to raise and deliver adequate resources to the countries most vulnerable to climate change.[19]

To remedy its historic shortcomings, the UNFCCC should consolidate adaptation finance in the new fund created by the Cancun Agreement: the Green Climate Fund.[20]  Routing all financing through the Green Climate Fund will simplify verification of developed countries’ contributions, and the Fund’s structure satisfies developing countries’ demands for greater power in project finance decision-making.  The UNFCCC can then incentivize delivery of financing pledges by (1) establishing a clearinghouse as the forum for bidding on and securing contracts for adaptation projects and (2) granting priority for adaptation-project contracts to countries that fulfill their pledges.[21]  Requiring transactions to go through the clearinghouse will require countries to fulfill their pledge before their domestic firms can access the market.  The firms’ desire to access these projects will increase domestic political pressure on developed countries to participate.

– Samuel Quatromoni, Managing Editor