Analysis
Climate ‘loss and damage’: why it’s such a big
deal at Cop27
Nina
Lakhani
Climate
justice reporter
Global heating crisis is felt most by countries that
are least to blame, so reparations are central to demands for climate justice
Sat 5 Nov
2022 07.00 GMT
Supercharged
extreme weather events are striking every corner of the globe, and every year
seems scarier than the last. The climate is breaking down much faster than even
the worst case scenario predictions – way too fast and erratically for even the
richest countries to adequately adapt and prepare.
It’s a
perverse reality that the countries and communities that have contributed least
to the greenhouse gases heating the planet are suffering the most – and are
least equipped to cope with the death and destruction. After a catastrophic
year that left 37 million people facing hunger and starvation in the
drought-stricken greater Horn of Africa and a third of Pakistan under water due
to unprecedented rainfall, expect to hear lots about loss and damage at Cop27.
But what
does it mean, and why is it so contentious?
What is loss and damage?
Loss and
damage refers to the irreversible economic and non-economic costs of both
extreme weather events such as hurricanes, heatwaves, drought and wildfires,
and slow onset climate disasters such as sea-level rise and melting glaciers.
It’s about holding the biggest fossil fuel polluters liable for the pain and
suffering already caused by the climate crisis, separately and in addition to
securing climate finance for mitigation and adaptation to help developing
nations prepare for what’s coming.
Economic costs
include the lives, livelihoods, homes, food systems and territory irreversibly
lost, while the harder to quantify non-economic costs refer to the loss of
culture, identity, sovereignty, human dignity, biodiversity, and psychological
well being. The most serious losses and damages are being felt by the poorest
countries – by and large those who’ve contributed least to global heating. As a
result, funding for loss and damage has become a central tenet in demands for
climate justice or, in other words, climate action that addresses the
inequities behind the climate crisis.
Why are we talking about it now?
Island
nations and other climate vulnerable countries started raising loss and damage
more than 30 years ago, but it’s become an increasingly prominent and
contentious issue at the UN climate talks in the past decade or so as the
speed, magnitude and cost of global heating has become apparent. At the 2021
summit, Cop26 in Glasgow, a coalition of mostly developing nations representing
six out of every seven people in the world called for the countries most
responsible for greenhouse gas emissions to commit to pledging money for loss
and damage.
Unsurprisingly,
perhaps, given the UK’s role as Cop26 president, their call for new financial
support under article 9 of the Paris agreement (in addition to funds for
adaptation and mitigation) was rejected amid opposition from the US, EU,
Australia and others. Almost all references were removed in the final
agreement, the Glasgow Climate Pact, and instead the Glasgow dialogue was
established, ostensibly to agree on a clear path and process for loss and
damage finance.
Who’s for it, who’s against it?
By and
large, developing countries, which often negotiate and vote in a block called
G77 & China, are for it as they are already suffering disproportionate
irreversible damage. The richer nations responsible for the vast majority of
greenhouse gases since the industrial age – and which would therefore be liable
to cough up – are against it.
Exceptions
include Denmark, which has promised 100m Danish kroner (£11.7m) to developing
nations for climate losses, the first EU country to do so, as well as Scotland
and the Belgian region of Wallonia. At this year’s UN general assembly, the UN
chief, António Guterres, described loss and damage as a “fundamental question
of climate justice, international solidarity and trust” – adding that
“polluters must pay” because “vulnerable countries need meaningful action”.
The
planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the
good, the bad and the essential
Will Cop27 be any different?
Human
rights groups have criticised the decision to hold this year’s summit in Sharm
el-Sheikh, Egypt, due to the authoritarian regime’s dire track record on free
speech, protest and independent research. But it was Africa’s turn and Egypt
was nominated by the African nations, in part because of its strong stance on
loss and damage, as well as its respected negotiators, who they hope will be
navigate through western delaying tactics.
In a boost
to developing nations, loss and damage was spotlighted in this year’s IPCC
report despite opposition by the US, whose main goal is to provide climate
finance in the form of loans not grants. Still, western economies are reeling
from the pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine, and the US climate envoy, John
Kerry, made America’s position clear when he said that focusing on loss and
damage “could delay our ability to do the most important thing of all, which is
[to] achieve mitigation sufficient to reduce the level of adaptation”.
Nevertheless,
it is expected to be one of the dominant themes at Cop27 and is a red line in
the negotiations for many developing countries including Pakistan, which holds
the presidency for the G77 and China and has been devastated by floods and
extreme heat this year. Pakistan’s climate minister, Sherry Rehman, told the
Guardian: “We are on the frontline and intend to keep loss and damage and
adapting to climate catastrophes at the core of our arguments and negotiations.
There will be no moving away from that.”
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário