Why loss and damage is the 'most politically contentious issue' in climate negotiations

LONDON — From extreme storms to flooding to desertification, there are widespread fears over how the impacts of climate change are causing loss and damage — to lives, livelihoods, and land. In Article 8 of the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change, governments recognized “the importance of averting, minimizing and addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events, and the role of sustainable development in reducing the risk of loss and damage.” But experts told Devex there has been a lack of progress around the issue, with high-income countries — historically the biggest polluters — failing to sufficiently engage. “Loss and damage is probably among [the most], if not the most politically contentious issue in the climate change negotiations at the moment, and progress has been really slow over the last few years,” said Lisa Vanhala, a professor at University College London who studies the politics of climate change. Many see progress on this as a key measure of success for COP 26, the postponed climate summit now set to take place in November 2021, and essential to restoring confidence in climate negotiations more broadly among lower-income countries. “What we now need is leadership on the global stage from all the historical polluters — recognizing we can’t continue avoiding [the issue of] loss and damage.” --— Mohamed Adow, founding director, Power Shift Africa To a large extent, the hesitation of high-income countries to deal with the issue comes down to money, observers said, and fear about whether commitments on loss and damage could lead to huge financial demands beyond the climate finance commitments already made — potentially even through litigation for compensation. “Developed countries want to keep [loss and damage] as [part of a] package of work happening on adaptation, particularly when it comes to finance — new finance for loss and damage is really contentious. I think that’s in some ways at the root of all of this," Vanhala said. Alongside new finance, the issues of historic responsibility for loss and damage and whether it is a humanitarian issue or something to be dealt with by COP under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, are also contentious. But the issue goes beyond money — some experts say that transferring other resources, such as knowledge and expertise to help with sustainable jobs for those who have lost their livelihoods or supporting the dignity of displaced people, should also be part of the response. In his home region of Garissa, in Kenya’s dry northeast, desertification and drought are ending the livelihoods of pastoralist farmers, forcing them to survive on humanitarian support, said Mohamed Adow, founding director of the Power Shift Africa think tank. This emergency response “doesn’t actually account for the fact that these people are losing their traditional lifestyles” because of a lack of alternative sustainable livelihoods, he said. As extreme climate events become more prevalent, demand is growing from the lowest income countries for more action — and resources — to deal with them. “What we now need is leadership on the global stage from all the historical polluters — recognizing we can’t continue avoiding [the issue of] loss and damage,” Adow said. “It’s happening, everyone can see it. So how do we actually minimize that?” Part of the difficulty stems from a lack of a working definition of loss and damage — despite its appearance in the Paris Agreement. “You will get as many definitions [on loss and damage] as people you ask,” Vanhala said. While some see it as part of the adaptation agenda, others view it as a separate issue demanding a separate response. Vanhala described “two competing framings” whereby lower-income countries in the G-77 and China tend to view it through a lens of injustice and harm with associated responsibilities, liabilities and a need for rehabilitation. Higher-income governments frame the issue more narrowly around climate-related risk, to be met by resilience efforts and insurance. Even before the Paris Agreement, loss and damage was recognized by the 2013 Warsaw mechanism, established by COP as the main platform in the negotiating and policy spheres on the issue, according to Vanhala. The mechanism recognizes that loss and damage can be caused by extreme events, such as hurricanes and heat waves, as well as by slow-onset events such as rising sea levels and ocean acidification. It aims to “[enhance] knowledge and understanding of comprehensive risk management approaches,” strengthen dialogue and coordination, and “[enhance] action and support” around loss and damage. “Calling it 'compensation' is like a red flag to a bull when it comes to the higher-income countries.” --— Lisa Vanhala, professor, University College London But to set up the Warsaw mechanism, “both sides [higher-income countries and climate vulnerable states] were happy to allow for some constructive ambiguity about what loss and damage means,” Vanhala said. This ambiguity has since “caused lots problems” in terms of where it sits in the international system and who takes responsibility for it. Colin McQuistan, head of climate and resilience at NGO Practical Action, said the Warsaw mechanism ultimately led to higher-income countries “really trying to bury progress or work on loss and damage ... keeping it stuck in the negotiating process and really just trying to stifle progress.” Despite the Paris Agreement also acknowledging climate-related loss and damage, the treaty contains a clause “that Article 8 of the Agreement does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation.” “That kind of clause in international environmental agreements of all different types is really rare,” Vanhala said. “I think it really signals the nervousness on the part of developed countries at that point in time, and that’s continuing today, about ... liability, worries about litigation and what this means.” Vanhala also pointed out that at the level of individual citizens rather than governments, environmental “litigation is a growing reality.” The position of the United Kingdom government, which is hosting COP 26 and has a key role in shaping the agenda for the negotiations, is that compensation for loss and damage is ruled out by the Paris Agreement. But it says it is committed to dealing with the issue more broadly, though it has failed to convince many that it is prioritizing the issue. “The U.K. is committed to raising global ambition and accelerating action to support the most vulnerable from the effects of climate change,” a government spokesperson told Devex. “We are working with partners around the world to not only support those who have experienced loss or damage as a result of climate change, but also to help communities adapt and become more resilient to such change.” Is there a way forward? Vanhala predicted that many low-income countries would see “real progress” on loss and damage through productive negotiations, more climate finance and the “adoption of tangible measures to work to address loss and damage.” There are “many possible scenarios” for “forward movement” without referencing the more contentious ideas of compensation or historic responsibility for climate change, she said. “Calling it 'compensation' is like a red flag to a bull when it comes to the higher-income countries,” she commented. “My understanding is that there is a shift towards thinking about this funding as a solidarity measure, which may turn out to be a more productive way forward.”