Page - 171 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options
Image of the Page - 171 -
Text of the Page - 171 -
6 ThePoliticsof (andBehind) theUNFCCCâsLoss⌠171
capabilities (CBDR-RC)andreferences toprecautionarymeasures.Onthecontrary,
asexplainedabove,developedcountrieshavemostlyavoidedanyreferencestocom-
pensation, andhave tried instead to shift the attention tonon-economicL&D.This
is interesting ifwe consider that, up to the establishment of theWIM, developing
countries tendedtoassociateL&Dto(inprinciple) thequantifiableandmonetisable
effects of climate change, like physical impactsâe.g. loss of land because of sea
level riseâand economic impacts, such as the loss of development opportunities
advancedbyBolivia (UNFCCC2012a).Asawhole,developedcountrieshave tried
toshiftL&DtothelesscontestedDRRandhumanitarianframeworks;usedscientific
knowledge(issuesofattribution) toneutralise thedevelopingPartiesâcompensation
claims;andemployedethicalclaimstoavoid theâmonetisationâof thediscourse,by
hinting at the inappropriateness of placing price tags on the lives, livelihoods and
assetsof themostvulnerable societies (Calliari 2016a).
If power, in a simplified constructivist view, is about âconvince[ing] others to
adopt [ones] ideasâ (Snyder 2004), canAOSISbe deemed successful on theL&D
issue?Can theWIMandArticle8be seenas a result ofAOSISâdiscursivepower?
Undoubtedly, thedevelopingcountriesmanaged to institutionalise the ideaofL&D
as something beyond adaptation both in the text ofDecision 2/CP.19 establishing
theWIMandwithastand-alonearticle forL&DintheParisAgreement.Thus, they
wereabletoâconvinceâdevelopedcountriesonthispoint.Theresultwasobtainedby
framing theL&Ddebate in suchaway thatPartiesâ resources and interestsbecame
irrelevant as the playgroundwasmoved into the legal andmoral fields.While nar-
ratives of survival (and thusmoral issues) have also been employed byAOSIS in
otherUNFCCCnegotiationstreams(for instance, inaskingforambitiousmitigation
actions), themassive recourse to stateResponsibility-compensation claimswas the
mainfactorindeterminingAOSISâoutcomes.Itcanbearguedthat,ratherthanbeing
anobjectiveperse,callsforcompensationwereusedstrategicallytogetconcessions
fromAnnex1Parties.This idea is somehowreinforcedwhen lookingat the timing
ofcompensationclaims (Table6.1).
Most of them concentrated before 2013, at the time of the discussion for an
institutional mechanism to address L&D (what was going to be theWIM). After
that, referencewasmadeepisodicallybyAOSISandtheG77+Chinaintheproposal
for a Climate ChangeDisplacement Coordination Facility. Among the performed
functions, the facilitywas toprovideâcompensationmeasures forpeopledisplaced
byclimatechangeââaprovisionthatwasdroppedwithoutexcessiveclamouronthe
road toParis.Andwhile atCOP21 requests for compensationwere âtradedâ for a
dedicatedL&Darticle, theyreappeared inanumberof interpretativedeclarations to
the instruments of ratificationof theParisAgreement (seeBolivia, thePhilippines,
Nauru,Marshall Islands, Cook Islands, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu). This is not
to imply that suchcalls for retributive justicewerenot genuine: they are consistent
with theunfairness thatdevelopingcountriesascribe to theclimatechangeproblem.
However, some tactical considerations are discernible behind their use in climate
talks.
In termsof the âstatusâ thatL&Dhas in theUNFCCCarchitecture,AOSISand
other developing countrieswere less successful in âconvincingâ their counterparts
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