Bridgetown Agenda author rejects idea of climate reparations

The architect of the influential Bridgetown Agenda to reform the international financial system has rejected what he views as the “unhelpful conflation” of loss and damage funding with climate reparations, which campaigners have linked with liability and compensation. In a comment to Devex, economist Avinash Persaud, who serves as climate envoy to Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley, said loss and damage was about “global solidarity” and helping countries rebuild after climate shocks rather than making amends for burning fossil fuels in the past. Many high-income countries, including the United States, don’t want to pay so-called climate reparations — but politicians have seized on the blurry line between reparations and loss and damage. “Reparations imply payment for past deeds. The loss and damage fund finances a resilient recovery after a climatic event, including slow onset events.” --— Avinash Persaud, climate envoy to Barbados Prime Minister Mia Mottley His comments come as the world swelters through its hottest month on record and prepares for the United Nations Climate Change Conference of the Parties, or COP 28, in November. Climate finance and loss and damage, issues which Persaud is closely involved in, are both set to be defining issues at the event. Persaud is credited with largely designing the Bridgetown Agenda that has been spearheaded internationally by Mottley. Official Barbados government communications on the initiative do not discuss loss and damage but Persaud has previously written that a dedicated fund, agreed on at COP 27, could partly be financed by levies on fossil fuel producers. “For those of us who think a climate loss and damage fund is a critical part of the climate finance architecture, there is an unhelpful conflation between climate reparations and funding an international loss and damage fund,” Persaud wrote to Devex. “Reparations imply payment for past deeds. The loss and damage fund finances a resilient recovery after a climatic event, including slow onset events.” Persaud was responding to comments made on July 13 between U.S. climate envoy John Kerry and U.S. Rep. Brian Mast, a Republican from Florida, at a House foreign affairs subcommittee hearing last week. Mast asked if Kerry was “planning to commit America to climate reparations ... [paying] some other country because they had a flood, or they had a hurricane, or a typhoon or wildfire?” Mast had a board next to him which read “Loss and Damage funding aka ‘climate reparations.’” Kerry immediately replied, “no, under no circumstances.” The exchange — between politicians of opposing parties — demonstrated why loss and damage has long been such a sensitive issue in climate negotiations. Advocates argue that high-income countries that built their wealth through burning fossil fuels should donate to the fund, but many governments face intense domestic pressures to rein in international climate spending. “Rich countries cannot conveniently divorce their unwillingness to take high responsibility for contributing to a loss and damage fund from the unwillingness of poorer countries to engage in costly climate mitigation [transitioning to cleaner energy sources] that is faster than they would naturally do or the rich world did,” Persaud wrote. “Solidarity, along the lines of capacity to contribute, is in everyone's interests.” Persaud said the United States was playing a “positive role” by helping to expand lending by development banks for climate resilience, and through humanitarian relief after disasters: “I wouldn't call any of that climate reparations, and it is unhelpful to do so.” He added: “That is a measure of global solidarity in response to a global problem where the effects are currently most severe in poor countries and caused chiefly by rich countries.” But “immediate relief” provided by donors like the U.S. after climate disasters funded only 5% of recovery costs, said Persaud. He said the loss and damage fund needs $100 billion in grant form or “countries would end up drowning in oceans of debt before the seas rise up.” Outside of grants, the fund “cannot be funded any other way,” added Persaud. He provided no details to Devex on who the main donors could be. Aside from the U.S., other major donor countries have also been reluctant to make loss and damage pledges — with senior politicians from both the United Kingdom and Norway avoiding the question when asked by Devex. There has been a call for early pledges to the fund from the United Arab Emirates, which is hosting COP 28. Higher-income countries have already failed to meet a commitment, agreed in 2009, to deliver $100 billion a year in climate finance to lower-income countries, which has been a key cause of tension in international climate negotiations. Despite the breakthrough agreement at last year’s COP 27 to create a loss and damage fund, the complex negotiations to get it set up are off track. A working and financed loss and damage fund is seen by many experts as essential to clinching a global agreement at COP 28 — in a year that has seen further climate disasters and record heat waves.