Page - 162 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
Image of the Page - 162 -
Text of the Page - 162 -
162 E.Calliari et al.
developed countries’ attempts to have L&D treated outside the Paris Agreement
through a COP decision, or inside the text of the agreement but under the same
article as adaptation. As for compensation, any references to such a concept have
mostlybeenavoided,withdevelopedcountries shifting instead theattention tonon-
economicL&D,suchas“lossesoflivesandnegativeimpactsforhealth”,and“lossof
biodiversityandecosystemservicesnecessarytosustainlivelihoods”(Norway2013).
The US also raised ethical concerns, by claiming that considering compensation
wouldhavemeant“put[ting]amonetaryvalueonthe lives, livelihoodsandassetsof
themostvulnerablecountries andpopulations” (UNFCCC2012a).
Not surprisingly, inParis they rejected compensatory language (e.g. “rehabilita-
tion”, “compensation” and“liability”) for fear of creating a legal liability forL&D
sufferedbydevelopingcountries (HuqandDeSouza2016).FormerU.S.Secretary
ofStateJohnKerryexplainedtheUS’reluctanceinrelationtothisasfollows:“We’re
not against [loss and damage].We’re in favour of framing it in away that doesn’t
create a legal remedy becauseCongresswill never buy into an agreement that has
something like that…the impactof itwouldbe tokill thedeal” (Goodell 2015).
Ultimately, Article 8 can be viewed as a compromise for developed countries;
althoughtheyconcededthe treatmentofL&Dasaseparatepillar forclimateaction,
theymadeitclear that theycontinuerejectinganyliabilityforL&D,andemphasised
astrongrole forclimate riskmanagement.Thisattempt tomove theL&Ddiscourse
under the less contested and binding disaster risk reduction framework or under
thewiderhumanitarianarena isnotnewandhascharacteriseddevelopedcountries’
position since the inception of theL&Dwork programme.Acentral argument for
it has been the extreme difficulty in attributing “the incidence of loss and damage
to climate change, as opposed to natural climate variability and/or vulnerabilities
stemmingfromnon-climatic stressesand trends likedeforestationanddevelopment
patterns”, asputby theUS(UNFCCC2012a).
6.3.3 NGOs
Generally speaking,NGOshavebeenhighlysupportiveof theeffortsofdeveloping
countries tocreate a liability andcompensationmechanismforL&D.Suchsupport
has its roots inclimate justiceconsiderations; forexample,ECOnotedat the timeof
COP19thatL&Disamatterof“climate justice…It is timefor thosewhoaremainly
responsibleforclimatechangetoacthereinWarsaw”(VanhalaandHestbaek2016).
Inparticular,NGOs:
• HaveadvocatedforthedevelopmentofanL&Dmechanism.Forexample,German-
watch,supportedbytheMunichClimateInsuranceInitiative(MCII)(togetherwith
otherpartnerinstitutions), launchedtheLossandDamageinVulnerableCountries
Initiativein2012(CDKNetal.2012).Similarly,theACTAlliance,anetworkcon-
sisting of 140 humanitarian and development organisations, advocated forL&D
duringCOP19: “Governments should recognise thatwe cannot choose between
Loss and Damage from Climate Change
Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Title
- Loss and Damage from Climate Change
- Subtitle
- Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
- Authors
- Reinhard Mechler
- Laurens M. Bouwer
- Thomas Schinko
- Swenja Surminski
- JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer
- Publisher
- Springer Open
- Date
- 2019
- Language
- English
- License
- CC BY 4.0
- ISBN
- 978-3-319-72026-5
- Size
- 16.0 x 24.0 cm
- Pages
- 580
- Keywords
- Environment, Climate change, Environmental law, Environmental policy, Risk management
- Categories
- International
- Naturwissenschaften Umwelt und Klima