Why Loss and Damage are Important ?
Loss and damage are important as many small islands, vulnerable and least developed countries are currently disproportionately affected by, loss and damage from climate change, that cannot be adapted to and where loss is often permanent. Their calls for action were palpable in #cop26. Loss and damage covers both slow-onset processes of sea-level and temperature rise, as well as sudden-onset events such as floods, hurricanes, droughts and tropical cyclones, according to both the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. However, measuring, valuing and addressing the impacts from these processes and events in terms of lives, livelihoods and ecosystems lost and damaged is one of the big issues. Many farmers in these countries are not being compensated for their losses nor do they have the finance to ‘build back greener’ although support and action is provided for under the @UNFCCC and Paris Agreement. How that support is defined and rolled out is the contentious issue that is causing the delays.
Their rightful calls for action at COP 26 were forthright. They see it as a matter of life and death. “We cannot wait for speeches when the sea is rising around us. We are sinking but so is everyone else”, said Tuvalu’s foreign minister, Simon Kofe, to COP 26, standing knee-deep in water, to illustrate the extent of loss and damage to his island country.
“It takes a single storm, a few hours to destroy the economy and infrastructure of an entire small island state, which lacks the necessary financial and other resources to rebound and rebuild”, said the Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda as Chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, (AOSIS). He added that “such loss and damage have persisted for decades, but compensation has been neglected by the governments of the worst polluting countries, for far too long”. We heard a similar message from Mr Sonam P. Wangdi, Chair of the Least Developed Countries group (LDC), representing over one billion people throughout Africa, Asia-Pacific and the Caribbean, when he stated that LDCs disproportionately suffer from the ever-increasing impacts of climate change and yet contribute the least to global warming.
“Small island development states declined by 25% in 2019”, said Mia Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados in a powerful speech at the opening of the COP26 World Leaders Summit of UNFCCC in Glasgow.
The calls were not only from the many politicians, but were also heard from a number of climate lobbyists too. The Kenyan youth activist Elizabeth Wathuti said that Sub Saharan Africa (SSA) is responsible for only a half a precent of global historic emissions and yet “the heartbreak and injustice is hard to bear” as she talked about how her people in Kenya are suffering from the impacts of climate change and called on all world leader to “open their hearts and then act”. https://youtu.be/VMvzJu79WG0
The former US president Barack Obama lent his voice to the plea and attended with the representatives of island states quoting an old Hawaiian saying, “If you want to paddle a canoe you better all be rowing in the same direction at the same time” and called on all to move in that spirit.
The evidence is increasingly becoming sharper with respect to the big CO2 global emitters. In 2017, they were, and continue to be, China (27%), USA, (15%) EU, (9.8%), Russia, (4.7%) and Japan (3.3%), yet these big polluters equate loss and damage to compensation or liability issues and are therefore reluctant to reach a compromise within this narrative.
The economic cost of loss and damage in least developed countries has been estimated by Markandya. A., et al (2018), at $290–580 billion by 2030, rising to $1–1.8 trillion by 2050, so there is, of course, hesitancy in responding, given all the other financial demands facing countries, including Covid-19.
Despite the emotional pleas, only small steps have been made in addressing loss and damage.
What was Discussed at COP26?
There were four key loss and damage topics for discussion at COP 26. They are:
1. How Should the International Warsaw Mechanism (WIM) on Loss and Damage be Governed Going Forward ?
Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of Bangladesh, chair of Climate Vulnerable Forum, (CVF) with its 48 member states, along with Mr Gaston Browne, Prime Minister of Antigua and Barbuda, chair of the Alliance of Small Island States, (AOSIS), made up of 39 states, and Mr Sonam P. Wangdi, Secretary of the National Environment Commission for the Royal Government of Bhutan, chair of the Least Developed Countries Group of 46 Least Developed Countries, together and as part of the G77+ China grouping all passionately called for, in different ways, a reduction in emissions to keep global temperatures to below 1.5 degrees, finance to address loss and damage and a firm governance mechanism for the International Warsaw mechanism (WIM). For many years, these groups have sought to have loss and damage recognized and be given more prominence.
Their calls for attention were finally answered about a decade ago with the establishment of a work programme around loss and damage which led to the establishment of the WIM in 2013 at COP19 in Warsaw, Poland, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (decision 2/CP.19) to address loss and damage in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. An executive committee of WIM (ExCom) was also established to guide implementation of the functions of the WIM.
‘Loss and damage’ was also included in the Paris Agreement (article 8) in 2015 that reaffirmed the WIM as the mechanism to address loss and damage associated with climate change impacts, including from extreme weather events and slow onset events. It has been included in recent IPCC reports, in the Enhanced Transparency Framework, CP 2018 (IV,(g),p19) and the global stocktake 2018, thus ensuring loss and damage is written into all the relevant climate change frameworks.
While these steps demonstrate progress, the governance of WIM is still not finalised. Discussions at COP 26 centred on whether the WIM should continue operating under both the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement (as it is included in both) and be subject to the authority and guidance of both COP (UNFCCC) and CMA (Paris Agreement) or, instead, be placed under the Paris Agreement only. UNFCCC have very clear guidelines on who are annex 1 and non-annex countries. Article 8 of the Paris Agreement (in para.51 of the accompanying decision 1/CP21) states that loss and damage “does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation” and therefore might be easier for developed countries to negotiate a way forward on finances without having to accept state responsibility for climate change while developing countries want joint oversight by both COP and CMA. Such joint oversight would assist them should any country withdraw from the Paris Agreement and also in the case where countries have not yet ratified the Paris Agreement such as Russia. It would also provide dual platforms for raising important issues such as capacity development, and technical and financial support around loss and damage. This would require the WIM ExCom to report annually on its activities and take guidance from the governance bodies of both the Convention and Paris Agreement.
Despite all the work done at COP 26 and prior to it by all parties and both the Chilean and UK presidencies, the result at COP 26 included the statement, “Notes that considerations related to the governance of the Warsaw International Mechanism will continue at its fourth session (November 2022)”.
2. How Best to Further Operationalize the Santiago Network (SN)?
The second issue for discussion at COP 26 was around how to operationalize the Santiago Network (SN). The SN was established in 2019 at COP 25 in Madrid under the Chilean presidency, to provide technical support to developing countries in addressing loss and damage. It established a website in June 2020 and held a number of webinars, meetings and events. From December 2020 to August 2021, the Presidencies conducted six informal consultations with Parties to discuss SN and prepared a discussion paper on how the network could be developed and operationalized. The discussion at COP 26 was around how to operationalise SN, make it more than a website and be more meaningful to developing countries needing the assistance and to those willing to provide it. In addition, COP 26 discussed the finalization of its functions, how it should be structured and what institutional arrangements would be adequate going forward. Should it be governed by a UNFCCC Secretariat or by an external organisation or by another mechanism through its relationship with both the Paris agreement and the UNFCCC framework. Furthermore, there were discussions on how to finance such a structure and its work. At the Pre-COP meeting in Milan developing countries asked for it to be operationalised as soon as possible and for a fund to be established to support the implementation of the SN.
Some progress was made at COP 26 with the functions for the Santiago Network agreed but the meeting decided, “to further develop the institutional arrangements but encourages, recognizing the urgent need for scaling-up of action and support, as appropriate, including finance, technology and capacity-building”. The meeting also agreed the modalities for the management of funds provided for technical assistance under SN and the terms for their disbursement and urged all parties to provide funding for the running of SN and its technical assistance work. The government of Germany at COP 26 committed 10 million euro to support SN but it is not clear where the funds will come from and how soon, to support the work of SN as distinct from the staff of SN. It is also not clear whether developed countries want this modality to be the main channel for funding on loss and damage.
3. At What Levels (Political or Technical) Should Loss and Damage be Discussed at Future COPs?
The third issue was around defining the appropriate platform for discussing loss and damage. OASIS, CVF, and LDCs have asked for some time to have loss and damage to be a permanent standalone item to be discussed in the Subsidiary Bodies’ (SBs) agenda at each of their sessions. Currently, loss and damage is discussed annually as part of the WIM ExCom report which is seen as being at a technical level. On the other hand, the SBs who are technical bodies, are tasked with recommending decisions to the governing bodies (COP and CMA) at political level and meet at least twice year. So to have it a standalone permanent item on the SBs agenda would escalate the importance and momentum of loss and damage and not only through WIM. The Chilean and UK Presidencies worked prior to COP 26 to get a solution to this issue but did not succeed.
Having ministerial discussions in London in July and at the Pre-COP meeting in Milan is already signalling a willingness for loss and damage to be discussed at political levels. However, this issue received little time at COP 26.
4. How Best to Finance Loss and Damage?
The fourth issue was about finance for loss and damage. During the 2009 Copenhagen Accord (2009) and in the Cancun Agreements (2010), developed nations committed to jointly mobilise $100 billion per year of ‘new and additional finance’ from 2020 to address developing countries’ needs for adaptation and mitigation support. Unfortunately, this commitment was not reached during COP 26. There were calls by many for funds to be split 50% to adaptation and 50% to mitigation and more in grants and less in loans. While this split was not met, there were pledges of $356 million to the Adaptation fund. What is not clear is how much and through what mechanisms will any of the adaptation funds be allocated to loss and damage. Loss and damage is part of international assistance under adaptation, disaster prevention, disaster preparedness disaster response and rehabilitation budgets.
Many LDCs have also been calling for funds for loss and damage on top of that provided for mitigation and adaptation purposes. In other words, give it equal status to adaptation and mitigation, to become the third pillar. They asked for a loss and damage fund or a facility under WIM to be established at COP 25 but were unsuccessful. However, COP 25 did recognize the need to scale up resources as well as the urgency of support and agreed to the establishment of an expert group to assist the ExCom in implementing COP and CMA decisions on WIM and its five-year rolling work plan that includes finance. This group was launched in October 2020. The issue of a separate loss and damage fund was raised again at the July 2021 Ministerial meeting, but again with no success, “while there was consensus on the urgent need for action, other ministers cautioned about the fragmentation of funds and the importance of existing mechanisms within and outside the UNFCCC being enabled to devote sufficient resources to effectively avert, minimise and address loss and damage”.
Progress at COP 26 was limited, agreeing only to establish the Glasgow Dialogue between Parties, not a facility that the LDCs had asked for, and urging all Parties, to provide enhanced and additional support for activities addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change. This was a great disappointment to the vulnerable developing countries. The LDC Fund received a $413 million in new contributions but what fraction, if any, can be allocated to loss and damage is not clear. The Scottish first minister Nicola Sturgeon pledged £1million, which was later increased to £2million, to address loss and damage. Some civil societies and three philanthropic groups also pledged £3million to loss and damage. It was the first money ever committed specifically towards this cause giving hope that a special loss and damage fund might still be alive. So this fight will continue and be brought to COP 27 to be hosted by Egypt in Sharm El-Sheikh in November 2022.
Overall, COP 26 made clear statements that the changing climate has already, and will increasingly, continue to cause loss and damage. Moreover, loss and damage was mentioned more than ten times in the final Glasgow Climate Pact. It certainly became a key issue at COP 26 in the main halls and in the corridors. But while this acknowledgement is welcomed, it is a far cry from the expectations of many. The big polluters made no explicit acknowledgement that they have caused climate change and therefore will accept their responsibility to pay for loss and damage, instead, the narrative continues to be framed around providing assistance through a “development assistance” lens rather than in terms of a liability and compensation narrative.
So its clear that loss and damage is much more than just about finance as Mia Mottley reminded us that “ failure to provide the critical finance for loss and damage is measured, my friends, in lives and livelihoods in our communities; this is immoral and unjust”. This immoral and unjust situation will continue to be fought by both vulnerable developing countries and developed countries, champions, lobbyists, the UK and Egypt presidencies, through the many mechanisms that are slowly being put in place. I am sure that the details of the above four issues will be discussed throughout 2022 and into COP 27, in an effort to find a way forward.
References:
https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Online_Guide_June_2021.pdf
https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop26-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-glasgow
Mechler, R., et al (ed.) Loss and Damage from Climate Change, Concepts, Methods and Policy Options, Springer Open, 2019.
UNFCCC, Report of the Conference of the Parties on its nineteenth session, held in Warsaw from 11 to 23 November 2013, Doc. no. FCCC/CP/2013/10/Add.1, January 2014
UNFCCC, Report of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement on the third part of its first session, held in Katowice from 2 to 15 December 2018, Doc. no. FCCC/PA/CMA/2018/3/Add.2, March 201
UNFCCC, Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts, doc.no. FCCC/PA/CMA/2019/L.7, December 2019