Seite - 162 - in Loss and Damage from Climate Change - Concepts, Methods and Policy Options

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