COP27: Loss and Damage in the Final Wrap
Coming down to the wire, loss and damage made its way into the agreement. Why does doing what's right take so long?
Climate change is felt hardest by those least responsible for it. As I wrote last week, much focus is on mitigation and emissions management. Adaptation, concessionary loans, and grants are all needed to help vulnerable countries proactively plan for increasingly extreme weather events. Unfortunately, mitigation projects can’t move fast enough, and the weather doesn’t stop. That means another mechanism is needed to fund disasters reactively. Enter Loss and Damage.
The opening of the Wikipedia entry for Loss and Damage sums up the concept:
The term loss and damage is used within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process to refer to the harms caused by anthropogenic (human-generated) climate change.[1] The appropriate response to loss and damage has been disputed since the UNFCCC's adoption….The present UNFCCC loss and damage mechanism…focuses on research and dialogue rather than liability or compensation.
That last line has been the crux of the matter for the second half of COP27. Should rich Global North countries pay for the damage caused by extreme weather events in the Global South? The link between emissions, climate change, and extreme weather is well-established, but in case we need a reminder of who did what👇
High emissions come from rich countries that need to focus on mitigation, the green transition and reducing operational emissions. While emission disclosures and reductions are critical tools (even the announced data solution from Climate Trace can help here), it isn’t the goal.
We need to save our planet and, in doing so, save ourselves.
Listen and watch a 10-year-old from Ghana, Nakeeyat Dramani Sam, talk about her experiences, the problem at hand, and a plea. As she states, by the time she’s as old as John Kerry, it will be near the end of the century, and the world will likely look very different, depending on what we do now.
She calls out, “have a heart and does the math,” and questions whether the youth delegation should be the only delegation at the next COP, a poignant statement and reasonable request. After all, Dramani and her peers will have to live in the future COP creates. Who makes the decisions deserves reflection, especially considering that even country negotiating teams are only 34% women. We need the diverse voices of those impacted most at the table. In the short term, that is women. Over the long-term, it’s children.
When women are in the room they create solutions that are proven to be more sustainable.
- Sophie Rigg, Senior Climate Advisor at ActionAid
This isn’t something to gloss over as it leads to the next point. What we’ve done or, more to the point, not done in the past isn’t working.
Underfunded commitments and risk
As I wrote about two weeks ago, there was originally a commitment from COP15 in 2009 for a $100B fund (that developed to execution in 2015) between developing countries that failed to meet its obligations. This has eroded trust in the negotiations.
A good starting point would be immediately delivering on that $100B promise with three years of interest. Still, this isn’t the same as the $1T needed annually or the $2.4T required annually by 2030.
The failure of developed countries to honour their commitments is not just an injustice and a failure of global solidarity. It contributes to the serious tensions and divisions that are preventing global action on a host of other issues, from peace and security to human rights.
- Amina J Mohammed, deputy secretary-general of the United Nations
Not only that but without the proper funding across all areas, an ESG risk appears-mass migrations due to climate change.
Already record numbers of people are being forced to flee their homes with each passing year. In 2021, there were 89.3 million people, double the number forcibly displayed a decade ago, and in 2022 that number reached 100 million, with climate disasters displacing many more people than conflicts.
If we don’t start funding appropriately, including the support of global citizens with tools like a loss and damage fund, world governments best start planning for this risk.
Why won’t the US step up and lead?
Last year at COP26, the US stated it would not support a loss and damage fund. Entering into last week on this sensitive but needed discussion, Kerry reiterated this sentiment because of the liabilities it could open up, asking for more time to study the option while leveraging existing financial mechanisms.
By Friday, there seemed to be little hope as only one option would meet the immediate needs and two options kick the can down the road.
As of Friday afternoon, the US was seemingly absent from the loss and damage negotiations with Kerry coming down with COVID. This presented a massive challenge for the talks as the US is one of the world's biggest polluters (only behind China).
The US is a key obstacle, (without American support) the conversation here cannot evolve. It is taking up all the air at the conference.
- Susana Muhamad, Colombia’s environment minister
The reasons behind the foot-dragging aren’t clear. Still, several things come to mind: The extreme right-wing stance and noise in the US on this topic, disinformation campaigns from fossil fuel companies, and inflationary pressures (which are slowing). In addition, the US seems fixated on operational reductions and the green transition, as evident by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act, and last week’s new clean and resilient transmission line infrastructure plan. These efforts are needed, but a comprehensive approach is, too.
This was the year the US could have changed its stance as citizens see climate change's impact locally. But, unfortunately, one topic overlooked in the midterm elections amidst all the controversy was how much climate policy was on ballots and passed.
NY multi-billion climate project funding
RI passed a green bond act
Boulder, CO passed a climate tax and allowance to borrow to fund climate projects
El Paso, TX passed investment in green infrastructure
If there was ever a time to test the US public’s persuasion of the issue, now seems to have been the time. I still think it’s not too late to bring the country together on the matter (Presidential address, anyone?). But alas, it was not to be.
You know, it’s not even funny. The U.S. is always like 10 years behind the current reality.
- Harjeet Singh, head of global political strategy for Climate Action Network International
This statement shows how much US leadership has eroded worldwide. Speaking as a US citizen, have we become so subdued by our political infighting that we aren’t willing to address what is not a political issue - climate change?
The word ‘isolated’ in this headline broke my heart a bit.
The EU breaks with the US, and things start moving
But hope came Saturday morning with news of the EU breaking with the US and getting on board with a draft to move things forward. All through the day and night, the negotiations took place. Late Saturday, I came across this headline:
Perhaps it was a blessing that the US had to take a backseat, as there was an obviously appetite for loss and damage as the day progressed. ‘Not blocking it’ became something to build on. Later, the above headline changed to this:
And so we had an agreement by dawn, representing the culmination of 30 years of discussion. Its importance cannot be understated.
Funding Arrangements for Loss and Damage
The draft states that a Transition Committee will be established to meet regularly and draft proposals over the next year. The fund is mandated to be agreed upon at COP28 (November-December 2023). In other words, no immediate action, but still a step forward.
I point out here that this shouldn’t impact a reconsideration and immediate action on the $100B previous commitment. While the new fund is shaped over the coming year, a fulfillment would rebuild trust and bring financial support today.
Seemingly led by EU wording, the draft prevents countries like China and LNG/fossil fuel-rich countries like Qatar, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia from receiving loss and damage funds. In other words, wealthier developing countries should not benefit. This wording is framed as ‘“particularly vulnerable countries.”
There are also many logistical stipulations, but I particularly like this part because more developing countries are at the table:
The Transitional Committee shall have 24 members, to be nominated no later than 15 December 2022, comprising 10 members from developed country Parties and 14 members from developing country Parties…
Local representation should be a consideration when picking the delegates for the Transition Committee. This was a theme that showed up on COP27’s Finance Day and proved to be critical for project success.
I would like to have seen women and at least a few youth delegates listed on the committee. After the showing at COP27 referenced above, I think this should have been called out, but an important consideration for the selection regardless.
One thing that the Loss and Damage Twitter account called out as disappointing was this.
We would like to acknowledge however the disappointing outcome on mitigation which is essential to avoiding future loss and damage. We expect developed countries who have made the greatest historical contributions to climate change to step up their mitigation ambition significantly and we would also like to see the phase out of fossil fuels.
I’m in absolute agreement, and with the global stocktake coming at COP28, it will be interesting to see if things move forward with fossil fuel phase-outs. So, we come to the end of another COP, but one thing is clear. An annual meeting cannot move fast enough for these complex decisions to be made around what’s right. We need ongoing negotiations and development between COPs, covering a multi-phased approach to unlock us from these annual time-bound restrictions. After all, the climate isn’t waiting. Why would we?