The number one goal of the Poznan Climate Change Conference was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This will not be easy. Despite high oil prices for the greater part of the past two years, a lot of talk about the importance of energy security and the development of green energy, the reality is that greenhouse gas emissions are still rising at about 3% per annum. In order to keep the increase in average global temperatures below 2o°C, according to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 4th Assessment, global emissions of greenhouse gases will need to have peaked by 2020.

In every discussion on climate change, mitigation measures must always come first. However, already many countries are being forced to cope with climate change problems, which will get worse during the next few decades even if the temperature rise is kept below 2o°C. Therefore, the issue of ‘adaptation’ must also be addressed in a comprehensive and effective way. To date, especially in Bali, the negotiation on the ‘adaptation’ building blocks have dealt mainly with the principles involved and the financial architecture of the proposed fund.

Concerns about ‘adaptation’ need to be progressed beyond discussion on what might be the most suitable scientific method of assessment, including issues of substance and, especially, of adequate financing. Increasing the scale of ‘adaptation’ requires establishing secure and predictable financial support, delivered through well-governed and effective funding mechanisms.

THE THIRD MOST VULNERABLE
The statement can seem quite technical and abstract until you begin to join up the dots. This ought not to be difficult for missionaries. Last September, I spent two weeks in Peru, visiting my Columban colleagues, lecturing on Ecology and Creation Theology, talking to people on the ground and visiting ecologically sensitive areas. While much of my focus was on the negative aspects of mining, time and time again I heard how climate change is affecting Peru at this point in time, and will continue to do so in the future. Although Peru contributes less than 0.4% of global greenhouse gases, some people claim that Peru is the third most vulnerable country in terms of climate change impacts. These include melting glaciers, more extreme weather and the intensification of the El Niño currents.

It is estimated that the average global temperature increase in Peru will be 1.8o°C by 2020, 4o°C by 2050 and 7.5o°C by 2080. To put it graphically, this increase will take place within the lifetime of some of the children whose baptisms I witnessed on the third Sunday of September 2008, in Lima. Global warming has already caused Peru’s glaciers to shrink at an alarming rate. Over the past 35 years, almost a quarter of Peru’s total glacier area has disappeared. This has already caused a 12% reduction of fresh water from mountains reaching the coastal planes. The retreat of four Cordillera Blanca glaciers has resulted in the loss of 188 million cubic meters of water reserves during the past 50 years. This has reduced water to towns and cities and to irrigated agriculture. Melting glaciers, which form lakes known as water-bombs, have burst out from valleys and sent walls of water, mud, stones and vegetation ripping through villages and towns, destroying everything in their path. It is estimated that, since 1941, more than 30,000 people have lost their lives in such catastrophes.

FRIGHTENING PROSPECTS
The projected increase in temperature is likely to cause many of Peru’s tropical glaciers to disappear during the next 15 to 20 years. As a result, the water supply for 60% of the population will be seriously diminished. Energy generation will also be reduced. Forty percent of Peru’s energy supply comes from hydro-electric generating plants on rivers such as the Mantaro River, which is fed by glacial melt.

Climate change is likely to transform much of the country’s arid coastal plain into desert and, in the process, increase the salinity of the soil. This will lead to crop reduction and failure in many places. The warming of the ocean is likely to intensify the El Niño effect, causing flooding in the north-western part of the country. El Niño will also lead to a collapse in the number of cold-water fish, especially anchovies. Despite such falls in food production, the population is poised to increase significantly.

Climate change is already affecting Peru’s agriculture in other ways. Livestock in the mountain areas are experiencing a lack of water and deteriorating health as some animals, such as Alpacas, are picking up infections because they are drinking water from muddy pools, rather than pristine, running streams.

LACK OF KNOWLEDGE
In Peru, the environmental, economic and health impacts of climate change are exacerbated by lack of knowledge about the impact of climate change and how to respond to it. Despite the seriousness of the problem, climate change has not yet entered into the political debate in the country in any serious way. One of the first official efforts to tackle climate change is the PROCLIM (Programa de Fortalecimiento de Capacidades Nacionales para Manejar el impacto del Cambio Climatico y la Contaminacion de Aire – Empowering national capacity programs to manage climate change impacts and air pollution). Improved irrigation technologies are also being introduced on a limited basis. The National Institute for National Resources (INRENA) is using its Glaciology and Water Resource Unit to monitor and evaluate the stability of glaciers and lakes in the high Andes.*

Against such a background the ‘adaptation’ debate takes on a completely different importance. Peru is a poor country with little enough scientific, managerial and financial capacity to meet all the problems which climate change is creating from its own meager resources. When one considers that almost every country in Africa is in a similar predicament, one doesn’t need to be a financial genius to realize that the ‘adaptation’ budget needs to be increased dramatically. But the needs go much deeper than money.

NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT
‘Adaptation’ must be factored into all the technological discussions. Risk management in many parts of the Majority World is at a very early stage. The Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA), and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LC), must be involved in building capacity in countries in the Majority World to deal with a deteriorating situation. There is a need to foster global and regional expertise. After all, Peru is not the only country that is affected by glaciers melting in the Andes. Some are suggesting that there is a need for global and regional ‘Adaptation’ Centers of Excellence, where personnel from various countries can learn how to enhance the resilience of vulnerable ecosystems in their countries, so that they can support human populations. Every country in the Majority World countries needs support in order to develop their National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPA) and then the ability to be able to deliver it on a daily basis.

Action on ‘adaptation’ is an urgent priority. By taking ‘adaptation’ seriously, we can foster trust and consensus on what needs to be included in the post-2012 agreement. For poor people in Latin America, Africa and Asia, it will be a question of survival. Now is the time to act.

* (Friends of the Earth International, “Climate Change: Voices from Communities Affected by Climate Change,” November 2007, pages 24 to 27).