The issue of loss and damage has emerged as one of the top issues for negotiators at the Paris climateย talks.
Swedish and Bolivian ministers have beenย leading the discussions on loss and damage, trying to iron out theย issues.
But big polluters and wealthy nations refuse to be held liable for compensating climate-vulnerable nations for future impacts of climateย change.
So what exactly does โloss and damageโ mean and why is everyone talking about it? And most critically, will we see a deal that everyone can agree to by the end of theย week?
What is loss andย damage?
There are some impacts of climate change to which it will not be possible to adapt โ instead, we will be faced with residual โloss and damageโ. This is when the efforts to try and mitigate or adapt to the impacts of climate change are not enough. Examples include Peoples and communities obliged to leave their countries and homes permanently; or the losses associated with destroyedย ecosystems.
Those countries facing such impacts argue that there should be a specific stream of work to deal with them, referenced within the Paris agreement. Resistance comes from big polluters, who fear that establishing such provisions will open the door to future compensationย claims.
So whatโs the status of loss and damage going into the secondย week?
For small island states and some of the least developed countries, the question of loss and damage has become one of the most important aspects of the climateย negotiations.
Tied into this discussion are other key elements of the Paris deal including climate finance for mitigation and adaptation as well as trying to keep the mention of an ambitious 1.5C global warming target in the text. The logic is that, if addressed, these issues on ambition and finance would mean countries hopefully wouldnโt suffer as much loss andย damage.
At the end of the first week of climate negotiations one of the key issues was where loss and damage will be placed in the Parisย package.
Developing countries want it in the binding agreement that is expected to form the core of this package. But some rich nations have been pushing for it to be included in a set of accompanying decisions that will not have legalย force.
In aย recent version of the text submitted on Saturday December 5th there were two proposals laid out for loss andย damage.
The first option, proposed by the G77 โ which has been described as a strong proposal โ outlines a process mechanism for how to deal with issues such as displacement as well as permanent and irreversible loss andย damage.
The second option is weaker โbut if we have [both] on the table theyโre both good to move forward onโ described Julie-Anne Richards, international policy manager at Climate Justiceย Programme.
Sven Harmeling, CARE Internationalโs climate change advocacy coordinator, described the text as โsomething technically manageableโ adding that there have been improvements throughout the firstย week.
The issue of loss and damage has in the past provoked heated arguments and walkouts at previous conferences. For example, at COP19 in Warsaw in 2013, discussions over the issue broke down and the poorer countries walked out. An international mechanism on Loss and Damage did however emerge out of the Warsaw talks and itโs hoped this will be included in the Paris deal in someย way.
โIn terms of substance, this proposal would put the Warsaw international mechanism more at the centre and not establish a new oneโฆ It would provide a framework for going forward without defining what exactly needs to happen,โ Harmeling explained. โIf parties start to engage on that basis then Iโm more optimistic weโll get somethingย useful.โ
So what do the wealthy nationsย think?
The idea that developed nations bear a responsibility to compensate vulnerable nations for those extreme climate events which they cannot adapt to is very controversial for wealthierย nations.
Many such as the US and EU are concerned that if liability and compensation were linked to this, it could become a massive legal and financialย headache.
Both the UK and US have confirmed here in Paris that they will not accept the notion of โcompensation and liabilityโ to be included in a climateย deal
However, as with the nature of negotiations, compromises are struck. Ahead of the Paris summit, developing nations agreed to drop contentious words like compensation and liability. โThe idea was to engage very constructively,โ said Harjeet Singh ofย ActionAid.
This helped Washington and the European Union to recognise the importance of including loss and damage in the outcome of the Paris talks โ but how to do that remains a stickingย point.
Todd Stern, US special envoy on climate change, told reporters in Paris last week that the US accepts the concerns of vulnerable nations on thisย issue.
โWeโre a supporter of dealing with loss and damage in an effective way,โ he said. โWe are working in a very co-operative and constructive way right with both the islands and the G77 on developing an outcome and a solution here, there are many players in this but we have been very engaged on thisย issue.โ
โThereโs one thing we donโt accept and wonโt accept in this agreement,โ he added, โand thatโs the notion that there should be liability and compensation for loss and damage. In that regard weโre in the exact same place as virtually all developedย countries.โ
What can we expect goingย forward?
As the second week progresses many are optimistic that loss and damage will be inserted in the main body of theย agreement.
Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, described the โlanding groundโ as โsome reference in the core agreement so itโs clear this is a core part of the agreement goingย forward.โ
Meyer added that there is also a process underway to get the Warsaw mechanism reviewed and expanded upon during the next COP22 meeting in Moroccoย 2016.
Given that the issue of loss and damage is โyoungerโ compared to discussions on mitigation and adaptation as E3G describes, any mention in the text is likely to be โbrief and to theย pointโ.
But weโre โat a very very critical momentโ warned ActionAidโs Singh on the morning of Tuesday December 8. โThis is a real life issue it is not a bargainingย chip.โ
Singh criticised the US for bringing the issue of โcompensationโ back into the discussions after developing countries agreed to let that go inย September.
โWe donโt have time for any bargaining tricks, he said, adding itโs time to โengage really meaningfullyโ on issues such as displacement and permanent loss andย damage.
โWeโve seen the Syrian refugee crisis and we have heard how it was [partly] fuelled by climate change. That was just a preview. We are going to see a lot more such realities and we need to prepare forย that.โ
Maina Talia, part of Vaitupu Island Youth and Tuvalu CAN emphasised the existential risk faced by the most vulnerable nations whose land is being devoured by theย sea.
โI want to stress the connection between us and the land,โ he said at a side-event in Paris. โThere is a concept back home called โFanuaโ. That same word we give to the land is the same word we give to the placenta to aย mother.โ
โIf you give birth on the island we bury the fanua and plant a coconut tree on top signifying our connectivity to the landโฆthis is how important it is for us not to go, not to leaveโฆbecause we are connected, we are rooted to theย land.โ
โIf we are to leave Tuvalu, it will become very different for a nation like Tuvalu to exist within anotherย nation.โ
He continued: โThe loss of cultural heritage for us simply equals to deathโฆlosing someoneโs culture and losing someoneโs tradition simply equals toย death.โ
This post also appears on Energydesk.
Photo: UNESCO Jakarta viaย Flickr
Subscribe to our newsletter
Stay up to date with DeSmog news and alerts