Author: Tasfia Nayem (Page 2 of 2)

So it begins! Today, delegates and stakeholders from around the world convened in Poland for the Katowice Climate Change Conference (COP24) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Over the coming two weeks, nations will hammer out the details of the Paris rulebook, which will set procedures to report, measure, and verify commitments under the Paris Agreement. Delegates will also undertake a facilitative dialogue, in which they will take stock of the world’s collective progress on limiting warming to 1.5—2ºC.

Duke University’s week 1 delegation was in attendance for the first day of the COP. Read below for the delegates’ reflections of the opening plenaries. A few students were delayed in Kiev due to flight cancellations, but now that the Duke delegation has all arrived in Katowice, expect daily updates and reflections from the whole team here on our blog.

Duke University delegates Corey Sugerik, Cai May Tan, and Paelina DeStephano at COP24.

Corey Sugerik

Today was the opening day of the COP and the schedule was primarily filled with plenary opening sessions. The first opening plenary started two and a half hours after it was scheduled to begin. This set an interesting tone for the beginning of the day, and the sessions themselves were essentially leaders of the various bodies reading through the provisional agendas. An interesting interaction that occurred was during the SBI opening plenary in which Ukraine urged the SBI to not count emissions from Crimea under Russia’s reports. The United States and Canada both expressed their support for the Ukraine and Russia responded by stating that the Ukraine was trying to politicize the UNFCCC. An interesting first day of the COP and I am looking forward to what the rest of the week will bring.

Cai May Tan

Today I attended the opening plenary as well as the SBI plenary. It was surreal being able to see agenda items come to life on the floor, as opposed to reading them on paper and thinking about them conceptually. Although we were seated in the observer section, I was able to pick up on the reality of negotiations and how bureaucratic the procedure was. Agenda items require many subgroup discussions  and outcome reports, and then further discussion with the larger body, before being sent off to high-level plenaries. I could see how a potentially substantive push from a Party could be watered by the many layers of deliberation and finalization by power dynamics and the urgency for ‘collective’ decision-making. With that said, I’m still extremely excited to attend the plenaries to track subsidiary body agenda items, and observe the decisions go from table to paper!

Paelina DeStephano

The first day of COP was immensely procedural. We watched the opening plenaries for COP, CMP, CMA, SBI and APA. At the SBI plenary, we started to get a sense of how the immense task of drafting the Paris Rulebook would take shape. Certain modalities would be discussed though SBI in a series of informal consultations. Other modalities are more complex and will be the subject of next week’s negotiations.  Given the extreme time constraint for finalizing the Paris rulebook, it was a relief to see some of the work divided up and other topics, such as the CDF, pushed to the next SBI meeting. SBI is supposed to conclude it’s meeting this week so negotiations next week can have a stronger tool for finalizing the rulebook. Since I’ll mainly be going to SBI sessions and side events, I’m excited to track their progress on hashing out the issues they’ve been tasked with, like deciding on a common timeframe for NDCs.

COP24 banners at the entry of the Katowice Climate Change Conference.

There are two primary channels through which loss and damage is discussed in the UNFCCC framework. In Part 3 of this series on loss and damage, we explore these two channels. We also discuss advances (and setbacks) on loss and damage at COP 23.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of the series for an introduction to loss and damage, its intricacies, and why advocates urge swift action to address it.

Warsaw International Mechanism

Loss and damage is a part of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM), which was a result of the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP) in 2013. Under the WIM, an Executive Committee was established with ten representatives each from developing and developed countries. As it happens, half of the representatives from developing countries are from least developed countries. The WIM aims to enhance knowledge to address loss and damage, strengthen dialogue and coordination among stakeholders, and enhance action and support through means including finance, technology and capacity-building.

Paris Agreement

Loss and damage is secondly included in the UNFCCC with Article 8 of the Paris Agreement, which arose from COP 21 in 2015. Article 8 articulates the importance of addressing loss and damage in the UNFCCC and reiterates that the WIM is the authority through which information collection should occur. Additionally, Article 8 makes clear that it does not involve or provide “a basis for liability or compensation” regarding loss and damage.

COP 23 – Fiji-in-Bonn

As we discussed in Part 1 of this series, the issue of loss and damage has become increasingly relevant, with many communities already facing devastating impacts of climate change. This is especially true for vulnerable nations such as Fiji, which oversaw the COP this year. Because loss and damage is not a standing agenda item, it is discussed only once a year by all nations during the COP. It is not discussed at any other meetings of the parties throughout the year, such as in Subsidiary Body meetings. As a result of these reasons, loss and damage was a major topic at COP 23 in Fiji-in-Bonn.

In their opening statements, many negotiating blocs representing developing nations (such as the Alliance of Small Island States and Least Developed Countries) expressed their eagerness to make progress on loss and damage at the COP. They hope to develop a mechanism to compensate the victims of climate change. Many developing nations, such as Bangladesh and Nepal, have already begun to mobilize their own funds to address loss and damage. However, it is expected that developed countries, that have historically been most responsible for climate change, will provide a large part of the funds.

However, as Climate Tracker reports, “the discussion on loss and damage has been heated, with Australia and European Union saying that there is ‘insufficient statistical evidence’ that extreme weather events such as typhoons are singularly caused by climate change.”

Advocates for loss and damage policy were aiming for two main goals at Fiji-in-Bonn. First, they urged for its addition as a permanent agenda item under the Subsidiary Bodies. This meant that negotiations on loss and damage could continue throughout the year after the end of the COP. Second, they hoped for a stronger five-year working plan for the WIM. There was much contention on both of these issues, as is expected with the heated debate on loss and damage.

After late night negotiations, the parties came to a compromise of recommendations for the Subsidiary Bodies. The compromise involves a one-off session on loss and damage at the Subsidiary Body meeting in 2018 in place of a permanent agenda item. The compromise also urges the WIM to provide clarity in the five-year working plan, but falls short of requesting recommendations on potential financing mechanisms.

Financial Mechanisms to Address Loss and Damage

In later parts of this series, we delve into ways to potentially to address loss and damage. We will also discuss challenges to adopting meaningful policy as well as ethics on the issue. Stay tuned!

In Part 2 of a four-part series on loss and damage, we discuss a few key examples of loss and damage that paint a fuller picture of the threat it entails. See Part 1 for an introduction to loss and damage and why advocates urge swift action to address it.

Extreme weather v. slow onset events

Loss and damage may occur from extreme events, such as hurricanes or heat waves, or from slow onset events, such as sea level rise or desertification.

Extreme events can have catastrophic effects, especially if adaptive measures are not adequately taken. Slow onset events, which have received far less attention, may also have pervasive, existential effects. For example, saltwater intrusion has led to the gradual salinization of drinking water sources in coastal Bangladesh. The salinity of drinking water in certain areas now exceeds recommended limits, which is particularly problematic for pregnant women who face elevated health and birth complications as a result.

Addressing loss and damage from each of these two sources will require different approaches, which is a challenge we will address in a later post.

Non-economic loss and damage

Some cases of loss and damage are repairable, such as damages to infrastructure. However, other cases are irreversible. Irreversible loss and damage cannot be recovered with money. These cases of loss and damage may be on an individual level, such as through the loss of life. They may also be on a community or even national level.

For example, extreme flooding damaged hundreds of pieces of historically significant artwork at French museum Musée Girodet last year. The Louvre, the Whitney Museum of American Art, and other museums have also been damaged as a result of extreme weather events. How does one put a price on this loss of culture? While valuations of artwork may provide insight in some cases, these amounts rarely represent the true value, particularly for grassroots or folk art.

Loss of culture is further underscored by Pacific Island states. Climate change is an existential threat to these small low-lying nations, which may disappear with continued sea level rise. To prepare for such a threat, Kiribati purchased land in Fiji for its citizens to migrate to in case the nation succumbs to the sea. Even if every citizen of Kiribati brings every item of cultural significance to the newly acquired land in Fiji, there is still a profound loss of culture associated with the loss of sovereignty.

These non-economic cases of loss and damage pose philosophical questions regarding the values of these intangible assets. Consideration of non-economic effects is an important component of an equitable mechanism to address loss and damage.

Loss and damage in the UNFCCC

In Part 3 of this series, we explore how loss and damage fits into the UNFCCC framework and advances (and setbacks) on the issue at COP 23. In later parts, we delve into potential financial mechanisms to address loss and damage, as well as challenges and ethics on the issue. Stay tuned!

Tasfia Nayem is a first-year Master of Environmental Management candidate at the Nicholas School of the Environment focusing on environmental economics and policy. Prior to Duke, she worked as a climate change communicator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where she helped develop and implement strategies to promote climate science literacy and better engage the public in climate action.

Loss and damage is a major topic at COP23 in Fiji-in-Bonn this year. Since it is an area of growing prominence in climate change discussions, I am writing a four-part series to explore the issue, its ethics and intricacies, its history and role in the COPs, and potential future policy solutions.

In Part 1 below, I share an overview of what loss and damage really is and why advocates urge for swift action to address it.

The need for a definition

Before we dive deeper into the issue, we must first ask: what exactly does loss and damage mean? Although it has been discussed at the COPs for decades now, there is no internationally established definition. This poses a problem: It is important that nations agree in the precise interpretation of terminology when negotiating legal international agreements across languages. This is particularly true for issues such as loss and damage, which could feasibly involve large transfers of wealth between nations.

What is loss and damage?

I find useful the definition proposed by the International Centre for Climate Change and Development and the Brown University Climate Development Lab. They define loss and damage as the “irreversible losses (e.g., loss of human life, species, and land to rising seas) and damages of significant economic cost (e.g., destroyed infrastructure) resulting from climate­related disasters.”

It may also be helpful to consider loss and damage in the context of mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation reduces planet-warming gases to prevent the worst effects of climate change, and adaptation lowers the risks of these effects on communities. When mitigation and adaptation fail, loss and damage occurs. Loss and damage is a catch-all term describing the injuries of climate change on individuals and communities.

Why the growing attention?

Recent events have propelled the issue of loss and damage to the forefront of climate change discussions. Our planet has increasingly been facing extreme weather disasters. People around the world are being harmed by floods, droughts, heat waves, and even slow onset events such as rising sea surface temperatures. In recent years, it has become clearer that the growing frequency and intensity of these events are attributed to human-induced climate change.

The urgent need for action

These catastrophic events are jeopardizing the livelihoods of those in both developed and developing nations. For example, the recent hurricanes in Puerto Rico, the Caribbean, and the southern U.S. killed over 200 people and caused $300 billion in damages. To piece together what they can of their lives, impacted communities need money.

Post-disaster reconstruction mechanisms may exist in developed nations to support individuals and communities to rebuild their lives. However, this may not be the case for lesser developed nations, who generally have contributed little to climate change but often suffer the worst effects. The world’s most vulnerable are facing catastrophic loss and damage and governments are unprepared to deal with this. Nations have realized that they must develop a robust mechanism to avert, minimize, and address loss and damage before circumstances become more dire.

Diving deeper

In Part 2 of this series, we explore the intricacies of loss and damage, such as extreme vs. slow onset events and economic vs. non-economic losses. We also consider the ethics of loss and damage and how it ties into adaptation and mitigation. In later parts, we delve into how loss and damage has historically fit into the COPs and how the UNFCCC may address it in the future. Stay tuned!

Tasfia Nayem is a first-year Master of Environmental Management candidate at the Nicholas School of the Environment focusing on environmental economics and policy. Prior to Duke, she worked as a climate change communicator for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where she helped develop and implement strategies to promote climate science literacy and better engage the public in climate action.