Page - 194 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

194 F.SimlingerandB.Mayer into consideration, if onlymarginally. Developed states agreed to the insertion of elements of language containing constructive ambiguities which, without entirely rejecting thedemandsofdevelopingstates, didnot fulfil themeither. One such provision is the principle of “commonbut differentiated responsibili- ties,”whichwasinsertedintheUNFCCCandintheRioDeclarationonEnvironment andDevelopmentadoptedat thesametime(UNFCCC,art.3;RioDeclaration,prin- ciple 7). Including theword “responsibility” gave some satisfaction to developing states,butthewordcouldbeunderstoodalternativelyasagroundforreparationbased onculpabilityor simplyanobligation tocooperatebasedoneachstate’s capacities. Thus, the position of theUnited States, reflected on theirwritten statement on the RioDeclaration,was that thisconcepthighlighted“thespecial leadershiproleof the developedcountries,basedon[their] industrialdevelopment, [their]experiencewith environmentalprotectionpoliciesandactions,and[their]wealth, technicalexpertise and capabilities.” To avoid any doubt, theUnited States stated on record that they didnot accept any interpretationof this concept “thatwould implya recognitionor acceptance…ofanyinternationalobligationsor liabilities,oranydiminution in the responsibilitiesofdevelopingcountries” (UnitedStates1992,para. 16). Likewise, small islanddevelopingstatessecuredthe insertion in theUNFCCCof aprovision recognising thedutyofdevelopedstates to“assist thedevelopingcoun- try Parties that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change inmeetingcostsof adaptation to thoseadverse effects” (UNFCCC,art. 4(4)).This, again,wasofa limitedavail. “Meetingcostsofadaptation”doesnotmean“meeting [all] the costs of adaptation” (Bodansky 1993). The obligation accepted by devel- oped stateswas simply one of contributing something to the costs of adaptation in developingstates. A streamof negotiations on climate change adaptation appeared, for long, as a potential entrypoint for claims forcompensation for lossesanddamages.Since the adoption of theUNFCCCanddespite the creation of an adaptation fundunder the KyotoProtocol, internationalfinancial assistance toadaptation indeveloping states has remained limited, especially when compared to financial assistant to climate changemitigation (Buchner et al. 2015).Agrowing frustration of some advocates ledthemtopushforadistinctconceptualframeworkwithininternationalnegotiations onclimatechange,whereclaims for compensationcouldemerge.Yet, anymention ofcompensationor reparationwasanon-starter. 7.5.2 TheWorkstreamandMechanismonLossandDamage AworkstreamonL&Dwas initiated in2007 through theBaliActionPlanadopted byadecisionof the13thSessionof theConferenceof theParties to theUNFCCC (COP13). TheKyoto Protocol had just entered into force and, althoughmeasures tomitigate climate changewere being designed or implemented, therewas a clear sense thatmuchmore had to be done through future agreements.Accordingly, the BaliActionPlanaimed“tolaunchacomprehensiveprocess toenable thefull,effec-