Defining Climate Refugees

Posted on December 8, 2018 by Brian Nguyen

Under the Geneva Convention, a refugee is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. However, when migrants flee a country due to climate change, they cannot seek refugee status because the Geneva Convention does not cover persons not being able to return to their country due to climate change destroying their livelihood or their homes. So when the 2010 Haiti Earthquake struck, all the displaced Haitians were unable to seek refugee status. Luckily, Brazil still accepted the Haitians into its country and allowed the Haitians an opportunity to make Brazil their legal residence. However, that is not true for all environmental migrants.

Throughout the world, there are groups of migrants who are forced to leave their country in search of new opportunities because climate change has destroyed their way of life. Whether it would be droughts, floods, typhoons, earthquakes, rising sea levels, or pollution, these climate refugees are forcibly displaced to go elsewhere. However, migrants moving to other countries without refugee status is a terrible situation to be in. On top of losing their monetary possessions, climate refugees are not allowed refugee rights under the Geneva Convention: access to the courts, to primary education, to work, and the provision for documentation, including a refugee travel document in passport form.

At the COP24 side event Implementation of Article 8 of the Paris Agreement and decision 49/CP.21, Panelist Shérazade Zaiter shared that the International Center for Comparative Environmental Law (CIDCE) is working on creating a legal framework for climate refugees. To start, CIDCE is working to define the term climate refugee like the Geneva Convention has done for refugees. Without the benefits and rights of refugees, climate refugees will struggle to find opportunities for a new life elsewhere. Sherazade mentioned that even if countries began implementing the recommendations from the Task Force on Displacement (TFD), the lack of legal infrastructure for climate refugees will make the benefits from the recommendations difficult to reach the climate refugees. The solution from the TFD to address displacement is enhancing opportunities for regular migration pathways, including through labour mobility, consistent with international labour standards.

However, environmental refugees will be unable to work under the Geneva Convention. As of now, climate refugees need to rely on countries to behave like Brazil and accept and provide rights to climate refugees regardless of the lack guiding international law. To provide climate refugees rights, CICDE is also working on a proposal for a Convention to establish a legal framework to guarantee rights under international norms to climate refugees. Even though the legal term is not exactly “climate refugee,” the classification of a climate refugee is the same as “déplacés environnementaux.” Chapter 4, Article 12 of the draft provides climate refugees sixteen defined rights which allows them to live, work, and gain an education. Moving forward, this Convention is definitely necessary for the future of climate refugees and needs to be discussed at a higher level.

Looking Inside an Informal Informal Negotiation: Protecting Vulnerable Groups in COP Decisions

Posted on December 6, 2018 by Brian Nguyen

The time is 10:00 am. The crowd of negotiators briskly walk into the meeting room while the observers patiently wait outside the hall, hoping for a place to sit in the negotiation. It is the third informal informal meeting of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB). On the table is drafting the decision to the COP about the 2018 report of the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism (Excom). This arm of the UNFCCC is responsible for providing recommendations to the COP regarding the issue of loss and damage due to the adverse effects of climate change. As I take a seat on the floor, I can see the negotiators carefully reading the updated draft decision. Immediately, the negotiators are addressing their concerns about the updated text. However, Honduras, on behalf of the Independent Alliance of Latin America and the Caribbean (AILAC), raised a novel concern. AILAC intervened that the issue of gender has not been brought up as a recommendation by the Excom report. Under a new section of paragraph 5 of the draft decision, AILAC proposed that a sentence addressing the issue of gender equality be included.

There was an awkward silence in the room. A majority of people’s heads nodded, including mine. I immediately thought, “Wow.” But it was not just me who thought so. Placards were flipped up and eager faces were glowing. In succession, other negotiators were agreeing: United States, European Union (EU), Canada, Australia, St. Lucia on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), and Timor Leste on behalf of the Least Developed Countries (LDC). However, other negotiators did not agree. Kuwait, who arrived slightly late, missed the comment and heard of it after the co-facilitator announced that the language would be included under paragraph 5(e). Afterward, Kuwait declined to include gender quality in the decision because climate change impacts everyone equally. Therefore, it argued, the language was unnecessary.

In response, Australia, Norway, and EU cited data that support differentiated impacts of the adverse effects of climate on different groups, especially women. Women are affected more because of their traditional roles as caretakers and vulnerability to violence in stressful environments. However, China also proposed that the gender text should not be included because of the short notice of time. China believes that the issue of gender equality deserves more dedicated time to thoughtfully implement the language as well as including other vulnerable groups such as children. As a result of these contentions, the co-facilitator called for a huddle to propose new language for the issue. What came out was, “To give greater consideration to gender and vulnerable populations, including youth, in the implementation of its 5-year rolling workplan.” Tension again rose over the use of the word gender and vulnerable populations and whether it was necessary to address both at the same time. Eventually, a compromise was reached when Australia proposed the text to read, “To increase its consideration of groups vulnerable to the adverse impacts of climate change when implementing its five-year rolling workplan.”

Despite the effort, the gender equality was swept under an umbrella term. However, are negotiators responsible for promoting gender equality or the protection of vulnerable populations? Canada made an excellent point when stating that the gender inclusion proposal aligned with decision 3/CP.23—the establishment of a gender action plan (GAP). Under paragraph 3 of the Annex, “GAP recognizes the need for women to be represented in all aspects of the UNFCCC process and the need for gender mainstreaming through all relevant targets and goals in activities under the Convention as an important contribution to increasing their effectiveness.” Furthermore, under paragraph 10 of the Annex, “GAP aims to ensure the respect, promotion and consideration of gender equality and the empowerment of women in the implementation of the Convention and the Paris Agreement.” As GAP is part of COP, it can be said that negotiators do have a duty to promote gender equality and not other vulnerable groups. If COP wanted to protect other vulnerable groups, it could have included those groups in the GAP decision or in another decision. On the other hand, the GAP decision text does not mandate the negotiators to take gender equality, but is more of a suggestion. Under this interpretation, protecting all vulnerable groups may be the balanced choice because then the text will incorporate women and other groups who are disparately affected by climate chance, like youth, elderly, minority, indigenous, and disabled. In the end, the acknowledgment that there is a need to protect vulnerable groups is an immense feat in moving forward on UNFCCC decisions. The fact that the negotiators agreed that more can be done to ensure these groups are protected is the future of what COP decisions will ensure – equality.

Preventing the Proliferation of Pestilence

Posted on November 9, 2018 by Brian Nguyen

The shifting temperature from climate change is increasing the range of unwanted pests, spreading deadly diseases and endangering human health. For example, the warmer temperatures are expanding the habitat of mosquitoes that carry diseases such as Zika, malaria, and dengue fever. The COP noted that in 2015, changed climatic conditions in Florida and Louisiana creates the environmental suitability for the Zika virus vectors to expand into the United States.

In 2005, COP11 established through DC2/CP.11 the “Nairobi work programme on impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation to climate change” (NWP). The NWP’s objective is to assist all Parties improve their understanding and assessment of impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation in order to make informed decisions on adaptation actions. Under the guidance of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) chair, the NWP gathers technical information on adaptation and seeks to identify knowledge gaps within the international community by engaging with over 350 expert organizations and other COP bodies such as the Adaptation Committee (AC) and the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG). Using a multi-step plan, the NWP streamlines the adaptation information to Parties, allowing health health risk strategies to be easily accessible.

According to the key findings in the 10th Focal Point Forum, climate change negatively impacts human health because it lengthens the transmission season and expands the geographical range of many diseases. Using this information, in March 2018, the NWP created the Adaptation Knowledge Portal to conveniently hold hundreds of case studies and tools for Parties to access when establishing their NAPs. Looking forward, the SBSTA encourages Parties to use this information when creating or implementing their NAPs. For example, St. Lucia included in its NAP an adaptation measure to “model and map the risk of climate-sensitive disease with climate change scenarios to support long-term planning” and to “improve data collection and analysis for modelling and mapping climate-related disease.” This measure is a great solution that other Parties can also implement to deter the health effects of expanding diseases.

Recently, the risk from expanding diseases seems to be placed as a low priority for COP. The 11th FPF did not discuss increasing disease transmission nor will the upcoming 12th FPF discuss the topic. Even in the realm of loss and damage, the Warsaw International Mechanism recognizes that non-economic losses do cover human health impacts, but has not explicitly addressed this issue. In the 2018 WIM Excom Report, SBSTA stresses the issues of slow-onset and extreme climate events, but does not expand on health related non-economic issues. Although WIM Excom has not been vocal on the issue, World Health Organization (WHO), UN Environment, and World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has recently, jointly launched a new global coalition on health, environment, and climate change to reduce the annual 12.6 million deaths caused by environmental risks. However, this coalition focuses mainly on the negative effects of air pollution. I believe it is pertinent for the UNFCCC to join the coalition to begin a dialogue about human health risks at the COP and then to take initiative to bring climate-related diseases onto the COP agenda.

Early Warning to COP

Posted on October 31, 2018 by Brian Nguyen

Climate change is causing an increase in natural disasters while vulnerable countries lack the proper infrastructure to counter them. To tackle this issue, vulnerable countries have been working on implementing early warning systems (EWS). In addition to saving lives, EWS provide reliable risk information which allows sound investments into a country’s infrastructure. However, these vulnerable countries often lack the capacity to install EWS and require cooperation from the international community to implement them.

I ndonesia’s recent struggle with its EWS exemplifies the lack of capacity building. On September 28, 2018, a 7.5 magnitude earthquake created a series of tsunamis that devastated the Indonesian island of Sulawesi. Over 1,200 people were killed and over 61,000 displaced. A network of 22 buoys connected to seafloor sensors float off Indonesia’s coast, intended to warn the Indonesian Agency for Meteorology, Climatology, and Geophysics of tsunami activity. This high-tech EWS was installed after the 2004 tsunami that killed nearly 150,000 people. However, the detection buoys were defective, leaving thousands of people helpless in the wake of the disaster. The agency did issue a tsunami warning, but lifted the warning after 34 minutes because the tsunami detection system did . According to Indonesia, the EWS has been malfunctioning since 2012 because it did not have the funding to repair or perform routine maintenance on EWS.

The UN has stressed the importance of implementing EWS since the World Conference on Disaster Reduction in 2005. However, the UNFCCC did not address early warning systems until COP16 created the Cancun Adaptation Framework in 2010. Nonetheless, the talks were important to build momentum to have EWS explicitly included into the Paris Agreement (PA) under Article 7(7)(c). This provision reads that Parties should strengthen their cooperation on enhancing action on adaptation by “strengthening scientific knowledge on climate, including research, systematic observation of the climate system and early warning systems, in a manner that informs climate services and supports decision-making.”

The inclusion of EWS in the PA–a binding treaty–is crucial in helping vulnerable countries develop early warning systems to reduce the impacts of disasters. According to the WMO, 54% of surface stations and 71% of atmospheric weather stations emit no data. To address this issue, decision 1/CP.20 invited Parties to consider including an adaptation plan in their INDCs, and a majority of the Parties defined EWS as a priority for adaptation.

COP24 is especially important for the implementation of EWS because this COP will finalize the implementation rules for the PA. With the fifth anniversary of Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) being held in Poland, loss and damage will likely be a prioritized negotiation which relies heavily on EWS. The 2018 Report of the Excom of WIM recommends cooperation to support preparedness through EWS — a hopeful sign for aiding vulnerable countries to maintain functional EWS and prevent another incident like Indonesia’s from happening again.

The Rising Need to Address Climate-Induced Displacement

Posted on November 8, 2017 by michaela

Fiji’s role as a developing island state and President of the COP brings Loss and Damage (L&D) into sharper focus at COP23. At negotiations thus far, differences have emerged between developing and developed countries. Developing countries generally want the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage (WIM), established at COP19, to have a broader scope, increased capacity, and more international cooperation on addressing L&D. Developed countries, on the other hand, are satisfied with the work of WIM and requested that WIM be given a chance to carry out its three functions: enhancing knowledge around comprehensive risk management of L&D; strengthening cooperation between relevant stakeholders; and enhancing action and support, including finance, for addressing L&D.

L&D is an especially important issue to developing countries and one noneconomic form of L&D is human displacement by climate change. On average, sudden onset disasters (i.e. extreme weather) displace around 25 million people per year and slow onset events will displace many more. Moreover, people in low and lower-middle income countries are five times more likely to be displaced than people in high-income countries. Mandated by the COP21 Paris Decision, the Task Force on Displacement was created under WIM to recommend ways to address, avert, and minimize displacement. These recommendations will be delivered to the Parties at COP24 in 2018.

The many extreme weather events that have affected communities worldwide in 2017 frame the current conversation on climate change-induced displacement. This conversation requires discussions on many questions including: what to call environmental migrants (the term “climate refugee” as largely been rejected); how can countries prepare for inevitable displacement; and, what rights and resources will displaced peoples have?

At the side event “Uprooted by Climate Change: Responding to the Growing Risk of Displacement,” His Excellency Anote Tong, former President of Kiribati, expressed his concern for the future of Kiribati. He explained that Kiribati will inevitably be destroyed by climate change, despite mitigation efforts, either by extreme storms or eventual sea level rise. His call is to prepare these future climate migrants through training and education programs so they can easily be assimilated into a new country. He called this strategy “Migration with Dignity.” The former President does not like the term refugee – in this case, people would have choice and agency in how they move.

Today’s side events on displacement highlighted the swath of agencies working on this issue including the UN Refugee Agency, UN Migration Agency, the Platform on Disaster Displacement, and even the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and World Meteorological Society, among many others. Collectively, speakers from these agencies highlighted the need to put protection of people at the center of displacement discussions, especially concerning legal rights, and that internal displacement will continue to strain governments. Forced relocation was emphasized as a last resort for communities.

In the words of His Excellency Anote Tong, “What do we do for whom it’s too late” and displacement from climate change is inevitable? COP23 has continued the discussion on displacement yet, much more needs to be done to ensure that when people relocate, they can call a new place home.

Approving Decisions on a WIM

Posted on November 15, 2016 by jonas

After many late night negotiations the Subsidiary Bodies (SBs), the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and the Subsidiary Body for Science and Technological Advice (SBSTA), came to a surprising agreement on both issues related to the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts in their 45th sessions. The main agenda items related to Loss and Damage (L&D) for SBI45 and SBSTA45 were item 11 and 5 respectively, but since these items were originally to be considered by a joint session of the SBs, they resulted in the same draft conclusions proposed by the Chair of the SBI, Tomasz Chruszczow, and the Chair of the SBSTA, Carlos Fuller.

Chair of the SBSTA, Carlos Fuller

The first issue established the indicative framework for the WIM’s five-year rolling workplan to include a strategic work stream to guide the WIM in enhancing action and support through finance, technology, and capacity building. This step is crucial to understand L&D and provide the COP with a range of strategic activities as it goes beyond the initial 20-year workplan. This decision also extends an input invitation to, not just parties, but also “relevant organizations.” However, this decision alone falls short of the SB’s directive. In decision 2/CP.19, the COP called for a review of the WIM at COP22. This aspect incited contentious debate among the parties. Delegations disagreed as to the terms of reference to be used during the WIM review. Through the dedicated leadership of the co-facilitators, Alf Willis from South Africa and Beth Lavender of Canada, the parties eventually reached a decision on the draft conclusion to be recommended to COP22. If the COP accepts the draft, the WIM will be periodically reviewed no more than five years apart with the next review to be in 2019. The terms of reference for each review will be determined no later than six months before the review.

LDCs – Concern, yet hope, entering Week 2 of COP22

Posted on November 15, 2016 by achristian

At the end of the first week, many were expressing concern that Marrakech’s purported COP of Action wasn’t measuring up for the world’s most vulnerable countries. Yesterday morning, Least Developed Countries (LDC) Chair, Tosi Mpanu Mpanu, identified troubles on key issues of ambition, adaptation / loss & damage, and climate finance. In particular, he noted that:

The Paris Agreement rulebook development is being stymied and strong action on pre2020 commitments is not materializing.

Adaptation needs of the most vulnerable, exploding as a result of inadequate mitigation by developed countries for decades, are not being addressed in a balanced manner, with even the adaptation registry being complicated. And, foot dragging on other seemingly simple decisions, such as the review of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM), is eroding trust and confidence that the global community will concretely respond to the very real and devastating losses and damages increasingly suffered by poor countries on the front lines of climate change impacts.

Developed countries have been blocking the Paris-mandated inclusion of the Adaptation Fund in the Paris Agreement rulebook, and the developed country recent “roadmap” to reach the promised $100 billion/year by 2020 lacks credibility – – unfortunate circumstances in the face of developing countries’ low-carbon climate resilient development needs now estimated to collectively exceed $4 trillion.

Work did continue yesterday, while heads of state and ministers arrived for the high-level segment. By the end of the day, among some positive developments were two improved draft decisions on the WIM (here and here). (More on these to come.) Additionally, the Green Climate Fund expedited grants for Liberia’s and Nepal’s National Adaptation Plans. Climate finance remains a hot topic on this week’s COP22 agenda, in particular, the upcoming High-Level Ministerial Dialogue on Climate Finance; so, hope remains for new and encouraging news on that front. (Check back with us on this, too!)

Photo credits: Action Time courtesy www.afd/fr; Informal negotiations courtesy iisd enb

Following the Growth of Loss & Damage through the First Week of COP22

Posted on November 12, 2016 by Beth Bootz

Loss and damage (L&D) has come a long way since the Bali Action Plan and the Cancun Agreements. Last year at COP21, L&D received its own article under the Paris Agreement, Article 8. But what happens next? For the first week of COP22, L&D was on the agenda under SBI agenda item 11 and SBSTA agenda item 5, so the chairs of both subsidiary bodies created a joint informal consultation to discuss the following two issues. First, the informal consultation was tasked with consider the recommendations in the WIM Executive Committee’s (Excom’s) 2016 Report, especially as it relates to its framework proposal for its five-year workplan. Second, the parties at the informal were asked to undertake the review of the WIM, as mandated by the mechanism’s creation in 2/CP.19.

Since the beginning of the week, the parties have been working toward agreements on both agenda items. Led by Beth Lavender of Canada and Alf Willis of South Africa, the parties are beginning to come to agreements on each of their two agenda items. One agreement the parties came to was there needed to be two separate decisions on each agenda item to present to the subsidiary bodies. For the Excom Report, the co-facilitators circulated draft conclusions on Wednesday to begin discussions on the topic. One sticking point on these conclusions was whether the decisions should invite parties to make submissions on the financial placeholder in the five-year workplan framework from the Excom Report.

The issue of financial support for L&D is still an issue with all parties involved in this process. When the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) first brought up the concept of L&D in 1991, its goal was to create a compensation fund in order to compensate those countries who would be harmed by sea-level rise from climate change. From this point on, the idea of compensation has been hotly contested, especially by developed countries like the United States. This idea was also debated in Paris, but ultimately, the parties agreed that Article 8 did not “involve or provide a basis for any liability compensation.” Despite this, many developing countries still need financial support from the developed world to deal with L&D.

Late Friday night, the co-facilitators and the parties issued a second version of the draft conclusions text. This version of the text included a paragraph specifically asking parties to make submissions on the various placeholders in the framework workplan, including finance. Presumably, this new text signifies a compromise between the parties and that this text will be approved and sent to the subsidiary bodies for approval by the COP.

On the second agenda item, the parties were still discussing how and when they should conduct the review. Some believed that the review of the WIM needed to be completed by the end of COP22, while others thought that the parties needed time for party submissions on various issues before the review could conclude so the actually review should not be finalized until COP23. In order to help bridge this gap, the co-facilitators drafted questions with inputs from the parties and these questions would help guide the review process. The parties have yet to come to an agreement on the issues, but they need to do so before the COP closes for the weekend on Saturday night.

Reviewing the WIM is important, especially following questions in Paris as to whether the WIM was going to continue to be the L&D mechanism under the Paris Agreement. Because the parties decided to continue the mechanism, the review is especially important to ensure it performs all of its mandated functions from the past as well as to ensure that it is well-equipped to perform its future duties under the Paris Agreement.

Approving the Excom Report is also important for the future of the WIM under the Paris Agreement because it includes approving and strengthening the WIM’s five-year workplan, which dictates how the WIM will operate moving forward. Inviting party submissions on financial matters may seem like a small issue but there is no financial mandate for L&D in the Paris Agreement, making any information about financial support extremely important for developing countries. L&D is not a remote issue to be addressed in the future. The effects of L&D are affecting countries now. The strides made in the first week at COP22 may seem small when compared to the growth witnessed in Paris, but these developments are extremely important to ensure that the WIM is adequately equipped to address L&D now and in the future.

Human Mobility in the Face of Climate Change

Posted on November 11, 2016 by Beth Bootz

Human mobility in the face of climate change is an issue that is closely linked to Loss and Damage (L&D). Under Article 8 of the Paris Agreement, L&D includes extreme weather events as well as slow-onset events. Both extreme weather and slow-onset events could necessitate human mobility or displacement, whether it be rising sea levels displacing coastal communities and entire islands or increasing hurricane and tsunami threats that cause communities to move inland.

In the face of these threats, the COP has taken action. At the end of COP21, decision 1/CP.21 requested that the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for L&D create a task force on displacement “to develop recommendations for integrated approaches to avert, minimize and address displacement related to the adverse impacts of climate change.” Since the COP issued this decision last December, the Executive Committee (Excom) of the WIM has published its 2016 Report to give an update on its progress over the last year, including information on the displacement task force. In the report, the Excom stated that it initiated the task force at its latest meeting and requested that the task force deliver its findings on displacement by COP24.

Keeping in line with this increasing focus on human mobility and displacement due to climate change, Thursday featured three side events on this topic. The first event discussed human mobility in the context of organizations and frameworks outside of the UNFCCC and in some instances, how those organizations and frameworks intersect with mechanisms under the UNFCCC. For example, Dina Ionesco with the International Organization for Migration (IOM) discussed a technical meeting and workshop on human mobility that occurred recently in Casablanca, Morocco, with the WIM in order to discuss capacity building, and action and implementation under the WIM. The WIM continues the call for expert advice from UN organizations and other expert bodies on the topic as part of action area six in its initial two-year workplan, further emphasizing the importance of human mobility and displacement under the WIM.

Another side event focused on the impact and importance of human mobility and displacement in especially vulnerable countries with a focus on a rights-based approach to displacement. This side event featured speakers from APMDD, COAST Trust, LDC Watch, and Friends of the Earth Africa and included discussions on what types of terminology is appropriate—migration or displacement—when discussing human mobility and climate change. Terminology in the context is important because they have set definitions in international law and these definitions don’t always conform with the context under which some human mobility occurs.

The final event from yesterday focused on cultural and heritage losses associated with human mobility and displacement. This event grounded the discussion in the noneconomic loss felt by many communities who voluntarily migrate or who are forced to leave their home behind in the face of repeated natural disasters or rising sea levels. Noneconomic losses are often overlooked when discussing human mobility because it’s difficult to assess these losses when conducting a cost-benefit analysis on whether to uproot communities. However, determining noneconomic losses, like loss of culture, are important to ensure any voluntary migrations are successful. The impacts are real and felt by all of the community members who are forced to leave their homes and sometimes livelihoods behind. Attending to and understanding these communities’ cultural wellbeing in addition to their physical wellbeing is a vital part of the conversation when discussing human mobility and displacement. With the new task force on displacement under the WIM, the above concerns should be taken into account in order to ensure the success of the program in understanding the full range of issues associated with human mobility and displacement due to climate change.

UN University Announces Nepal Loss & Damage Case Study

Posted on November 9, 2016 by Beth Bootz

Yesterday, the United Nations University announced a case study on loss and damage (L&D) that it conducted in Nepal following the 2014 landslide. Overall, the landslides had a devastating effect on the community at large, blocking a highway, causing power outages, and killing more than 150 people; however, this study focused less on the overall effects and more on the individual community members’ coping mechanisms for the L&D caused before and after the landslide. The increased focus on lesser-known, community-level techniques is a great opportunity for governments and international groups to learn about smaller-scale L&D solutions.

The panel, moderated by David Hewitt from UN Univeristy, included two presenters from UN University, Dr. Kees van der Geest and Dr. Robert Oaks, as well as Raju Pandit Chetri, who works for Nepal’s Climate Change Council. To begin the announcement, Dr. Geest presented on the study and emphasized that the goal of the study was to show the effects of L&D on the ground. In the study, researchers gathered evidence on what types of measures the landslide victims implemented before the landslide to prevent L&D as well as what the victims did after the landslide to restore their lives. Overall, the study found that the victims employed more reactionary efforts to clean up after the L&D but that more could be done to prevent and reduce L&D but these efforts lack “people-centered strategies.” Dr. Geest ended his presentation on the study by emphasizing that many people implement measures on the ground to address L&D but that these measures are not widely discussed. Perhaps this study can help shift the focus to these on-the-ground measures and bring them to the forefront as viable L&D mechanisms.

Following Dr. Geest’s description of the study, Chetri spoke about the study’s impact on Nepal. He first explained how there are limited scientific studies available in Nepal that help demonstrate the country’s need to go beyond adaptation measures to address L&D and this study helps to fill this void. Chetri also emphasized that events like this are likely to increase with changing and unpredictable weather patterns in the face of climate change, which makes studies like this more important in order to show countries like Nepal how to react to these types of events in the future. In the question and answer portion of the conference, the moderator asked Chetri about the link between academic studies like this case study and on the ground projects. Chetri explained that negotiations on L&D often seem abstract but that these studies demonstrate in a tangible way that L&D is happening now—not just in the future. Additionally, he explained that these studies direct governments on what types of policies and programs to put in place in order to reduce on-the-ground effects, further underscoring the study’s importance to on-the-ground application of L&D mechanisms.

The final presenter, Dr. Oaks, ended the announcement by discussing the cultural L&D climate change can cause. While admitting that cultural L&D is difficult to quantify, he underscored its importance to communities, and in some instances whole countries that may be displaced due to the effects of climate change. This further emphasizes the importance of L&D studies like this one, which could educate those working on L&D, helping them understand the individual community members’ views on displacement and ensuring that “migration with dignity” remains an option.

The views and feelings of individual community members are just as important as theoretical discussions about national or international approaches to L&D to develop comprehensive strategies to address L&D. Too often, L&D focuses on large-scale, national, or international solutions to L&D, but the real impact of L&D is felt on an individual basis in small communities across the world. This case study refocuses L&D research around these communities.

Financial instruments ignite SCF Forum on L&D risk

Posted on September 14, 2016 by achristian

Some sparks flew and some eyes got opened at the 2016 Forum of the UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance (SCF), held in Manila last week. The Forum’s exploration of financial instruments for addressing the risks of loss and damage was at the request of the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) on Loss and Damage (L&D) in service of Action Area 7 of its 2-year workplan. (For some past posts on the WIM, including on this significant SCF-WIM linking, see here.)

The Forum drew nearly 150 representatives of governments, financial institutions, civil society and the private sector. The webcast (which covered much of the meeting) along with informative tweeting (#scfmanila) from a number of participating institutions and individuals offered remote observers some interesting insight. But first a little context/framing:

Addressing L&D – Basically, addressing L&D involves: 1) avoiding it, and 2) meeting it when it is unavoidable. L&D can be avoided primarily through mitigation and adaptation. In addition, reducing the risks of L&D (e.g., through early warning systems and disaster preparedness plans) can help prevent it. Unavoidable L&D can be minimized through certain types of risk management (sharing, savings/credit, insurance instruments, catastrophe bonds). Because L&D still occurs, even if it is minimized, responses to it rely on disaster response and management and climate services.

WIM workplan Action Area 7 – A close reading of Action Area 7 reveals one goal, one objective (how the goal is to be accomplished) and one strategy/action (how the objective is to be met):

Goal = facilitate finance in L&D situations;
Objective = “encourage comprehensive risk management;” and
Strategy = “diffus[e] information related to financial instruments and tools that address the risks of [climate-induced] loss and damage…”

Action Area 7, through encouraging risk management, tends to both avoiding L&D and minimizing unavoidable L&D. As for the SCF Forum, it fit within Action Area 7’s strategy of diffusing information, by covering risk pooling and transfer, catastrophe risk insurance and bonds, contingency finance, social protection schemes, and other instruments.

Cat bond transaction structure (rms.com, 2012)

Throughout the event, however, it was clear that some participants were focused on the goal, while others (predominantly the insurance experts) were focused on the objective and/or strategy. The resulting friction illustrated the philosophical and political tensions that continue to fester in the climate regime in the absence of financial support to directly address loss and damage. The workplan, after all, is devoted essentially to compiling, diffusing and leveraging information. (We wrote about the Paris Agreement/Decision role in this evolving issue in our COP21 Documentation Project.)

The Forum did enhance understanding both of the gaps and opportunities with existing financial instruments, as well as the barriers that must be addressed to reach the most vulnerable with any versions of current and emerging risk instruments. (See the Forum page for presentations and the WIM Financial Instruments page for a well-organized host of relevant resources.)

Among the conclusions was that both cross-sectoral collaborations and integration of approaches are vital to deal with the risks of L&D. Importantly, two significant areas of concern remained unaddressed:

The absence of actionable approaches for addressing slow-onset processes from the insurance industry and related market players. Not surprising, given that there are generally no dramatic moments of humanitarian focus and no money to be made.
The absence of financial instruments and tools to address non-economic losses. Without a means to monetize, the financial sector has yet to be effectively engaged toward this cost.

We will be tuning into the WIM Executive Committee’s 4^th meeting later this month to learn its response to the Forum and more.

Loss and damage at SB44 – Whither the WIM?

Posted on June 10, 2016 by achristian

While, as we posted last week, loss and damage (L&D) was not on the agendas of the Subsidiary Bodies or the APA at the UNFCCC intersessional meetings held in Bonn, May 16-26, some attention was paid to this important issue.

Four side events covered varying aspects of L&D policy and action, both inside and outside the UNFCCC. These included climate migration, climate litigation, non-economic losses (we posted on this last week), and existing disaster risk management tools. (Links to event presentations can be found at the SB44/APA1 side event site.)

In addition, the Presidencies of COP21 and COP22 held a meeting for observer delegations to provide input on Article 8.4 of the Paris Agreement and action areas of the 2-year workplan of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) Executive Committee (Excom). (As we reported earlier, the workplan is scheduled to be completed for review at COP22.) Among those presenting were: the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Climate Action Network (CAN) International, the Munich Climate Insurance Initiative, a range of NGO constituency groups, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum.

Dr. Saleemul Huq, Director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD) in Bangladesh, and one of the (Least Developed Countries) LDCs’ top advisors, suggested that the purpose of this event was “to gauge the level of interest amongst parties and observers.” Given the throng of attendees and the passion with which many statements were delivered, it is clear that interest and engagement levels are high.

And, there is good reason – this is a highly political subject. According to presenters at the side events, developing countries are increasingly experiencing much worse L&D and sooner than expected from drought, heat waves, major storms, sea level rise, and salt-water intrusion. Climate-induced migration is gaining wider acknowledgement and attention. At the same time, L&D has essentially achieved recognition as a separate pillar of the climate regime through Article 8 of the Paris Agreement. Yet, the Paris decision included a clause preventing Article 8 from serving as “a basis for any liability or compensation;” on top of which, no specific reference to financing to address L&D is present in either the Agreement or the decision.

Concern is great, and the primary message is that the WIM should ramp up its engagement with the robust sphere of non-state actors and resources to both address current actual losses and damage and establish equitable, aggressive policies and strategies to avoid future L&D. Hotbeds of engagement exist for all of its current workplan action areas. (The 2-year workplan can be found here.) Dr. Huq considers migration and finance as “the two most critical,” and recommends fast-tracking those.

The urgency is mounting ahead of COP22. Among the questions we’ll be following, as the Excom holds its final 2016 meeting in September, is whether the 20-person body will seek an extension or try to meet the review deadline. Among its tasks is to “[d]evelop a five-year rolling workplan for consideration at COP22 building on the results of this two-year workplan…”

Will the Excom fail to deliver? Will a delay lose the political momentum of COP22? Neither those suffering now, nor those at current risk can afford that.

SCF, Meet Loss and Damage

Posted on April 12, 2016 by achristian

The Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) on Loss and damage (L&D) is going on a somewhat surprising date this year with the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF). The job of the SCF is to assist the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP) in conducting its climate finance functions. The job of the WIM is to enhance action and support to address loss and damage in developing countries particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts. (We’ve covered the WIM and L&D extensively, e.g., here, here and here.)

The reason this ‘date’ is interesting is that nowhere in any COP decisions is the SCF directly instructed to engage the issue of L&D or pursue a close relationship with the WIM. Climate finance language is strictly aimed at mitigation, adaptation, and building capacity and enabling environments for those. Yet, sometime in mid-2016, the SCF will hold its annual Forum designed to advance communication and information exchange as well as linkages. And, this forum’s topic will be: “Financial instruments that address the risks of loss and damage.”

It is true that, at COP19, Parties asked the SCF to “further enhance its linkages with the Subsidiary Body for Implementation and the thematic bodies of the Convention.” It is also true that, at COP21, Parties decided to endorse the SCF’s 2016-2017 workplan, which included this year’s Forum. But the guardian may not realize what seriousness (mischief?) might come of this liaison between two of its wards.

The WIM’s Executive Committee actually made the first move at SCF’s 11^th meeting in October 2015, requesting the ‘date’ based on an aspect of its 2-year workplan approved by COP20. And, while the WIM might not have looked like the SCF’s type, there apparently was enough chemistry for a quick “Yes.” Earlier this month, at the SCF’s 12^th meeting, the 20 Committee members reviewed input from multiple stakeholders and got the plans rolling.

What makes this kind of engagement between the SCF and the WIM important, is that, even though the Paris Agreement includes a distinct article on L&D (quite a significant outcome), it contains no provision for financing efforts to address this critical climate change issue. Thus, the SCF giving its attention to L&D could be extremely influential.

One clear way this can happen beyond the exposure and focus of the forum, is through the 2016 Biennial Assessment and Overview of Climate Finance Flows (BA), on which the SCF began work during its 12th meeting. The BA is a comprehensive compilation used to support the COP’s climate finance responsibilities. Not surprisingly, L&D received no attention in the 2014 edition. It most certainly will in the 2016 BA, with the Forum’s attention to this substantive issue.

Where Parties take it from there will tell a lot about the prospects for these two. Will the SCF and WIM really bond? Will they decide to go steady? Might there be a real future for L&D under the climate finance wing of the climate regime? Some are undoubtedly dreaming of wedded bliss!

COP21: The Gathering – What are we willing to trade?

Posted on December 11, 2015 by sara

From: http://images.google.fr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&source=imgres&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjX9dGQ-tTJAhXJXRoKHUt7AtIQ5RMIBDAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgeekspodcast.com%2F2010%2F04%2F29%2Fhow-i-organize-my-magic-the-gathering-cards%2F&usg=AFQjCNHGMS49fmEdu2avr5ZpqFpTLEfn6g

From: http://geekspodcast.com/2010/04/29/how-i-organize-my-magic-the-gathering-cards/

There are many analogies used to describe the climate negotiations, some of which – including fractals, webs, and dances – have been referenced right here on this blog. At this stage of the negotiations though, another metaphor comes to mind: that of trading card games. With the initial deadline for an agreement hours behind us, negotiators are making every effort to cobble together a robust outcome that will be approved by the Parties before the close of the week. At this phase, the foundation of the agreement is in place and global political leaders are negotiating the last remaining bracketed words and phrases.

This is not entirely dissimilar to trading card games, in which players build their decks over time, collecting cards that will serve particular purposes, and trading to create a final arrangement that will win the game. In Paris, negotiating groups continue advocating for particular measures, steadfastly insisting on their inclusion in the final deck. But to reach the finish line and present a substantial and effective climate agreement to the world, compromises must be made, trades brokered, and deals coordinated. And importantly, the trading cards being dealt here do not come in little foil packages, but represent language choices with grave impacts for real people across the world.

Photo courtesy of Rebecca Davidson

In the most recent version of the text, it is clear that Parties have reached some compromises, making informed sacrifices in order to preserve their most valued cards. Of particular note is how the language on finance has evolved over the last thirty-two hours. Financial obligations are addressed under Article 6 of the agreement, and since the previous version of the text on December 9th, the vast majority of the uncertainty has been removed from the language. Only a few lonely brackets remain, indicating that parties have worked furiously to resolve much of the underlying disagreement.

From: http://www.thenational.ae (Vesela Todorova)

While trade-offs are apparent throughout the text, the give-and-take strategies are particularly notable when developed and developing countries try to reach agreement around financing. For example, some large developed countries insist that they will not agree to new, legally binding financial obligations. Simultaneously, some developing countries insist that they will not agree to a system that saddles all parties equally with the financial burden for climate change. Many of the outstanding challenges similarly relate to notions of differentiation of responsibility and ambition.

A potentially underappreciated trade occurred in reconciling Paragraphs Five and Six in the most recent text. Developing countries lost an important component of their deck when dedicated funding for loss and damage was omitted. The earlier version of the text had obligated developed countries to ensure adequate financial support for the International Mechanism to address Loss and Damage, and to promote and support financing for irreversible damage from climate change. This paragraph no longer exists in the draft text.

However, developed parties offered a trade by including vital language related to the scale of financing to be provided. Paragraph Five in the current text calls for consideration of the priorities and needs of developing countries, with a focus on public, grant-based resources for adaptation. This represented a valuable trade for developing countries because, even without the loss and damage funding, this section prioritizes adaptation projects in developing countries when allocating grants and public funding, which are highly sought-after.

These are the types of deals that must be finalized amongst 196 parties before Sunday morning. It will be fascinating to track the outcomes of these trades in the final agreement.

Loss and Damage – Hot Topic for Climate Negotiations

Posted on September 25, 2015 by achristian

Through multiple meetings this year, the ADP (Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform) is seeking to craft a viable negotiating text for a new, legally binding and long-lasting international climate change accord for consideration at the 21^st meeting of the UNFCCC Conference of Parties meeting (COP21), being held in Paris in December. By all accounts, there was far less progress than hoped for at ADP2-10, held in Bonn, Germany from Aug. 31-Sept. 4. Climate Action Network (CAN) International characterized it as “incremental.” The Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB) noted the unresolved “deep differences” on the Paris package elements, structure, and approaches to crosscutting issues. And, ActionAid, calling the progress “fragile,” concluded that the week’s work shortchanged poorer countries on key issues.

One of those key issues was Loss and Damage (L&D). (For a refresher on L&D within the UNFCCC, please see our coverage over the last two years.) L&D has become an exceedingly hot button issue for the poorest and most vulnerable countries, given what they are already facing, and even more so, what’s ahead.

The 3,253 hydrometeorological (weather, climate and water) hazards reported around the globe between 2005 and 2014 caused more than 283,000 deaths and more than $980 million in economic losses. According to the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, nearly 3.4 million people were affected by drought between mid-2014 and mid-2015, with Haiti and Honduras topping the list; the heat waves in India and Pakistan led to 3,700 deaths in the first half of 2015; and, storms and floods in Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Malawi and Bangladesh impacted a reported 2 million citizens over that same period.

Support to address these losses has been and continues to be insufficient, and the need for far more help is widely predicted. This situation, combined with the glaringly inadequate global mitigation of GHGs to date, creates an urgency that developed countries are no longer able to ignore in the climate negotiations.

Discussions on L&D did deepen during ADP2-10, primarily focusing on institutional arrangements and technical support, crystallizing as the week went on around a nagging sticking point – will L&D be substantively addressed in the core agreement (developing countries’ position), or not (most developed countries’ position)? Specifically, the G77+China and the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) called for “[p]lacing a loss and damage mechanism with a climate displacement coordination facility in the [core] agreement,” to replace the Warsaw International Mechanism for L&D (WIM) after 2020. Developed countries pushed back, not wanting to grant L&D such prominent status from which the spectre of compensation could more credibly arise. The Sept. 4 Working Document from the ADP2-10 break-outs on Adaptation and Loss and Damage gives a summary.

Our VLS delegation head, Tracy Bach, reported that continued brainstorming and strategizing yielded a discussion proposal from the U.S. and several other developed countries on the final day. It suggested making the WIM permanent through a COP decision and having it serve the new agreement after 2020. In this way, L&D would be kept from a place in the core agreement, even as it is recognized.

This proposal may pave the way for compromise on location of institutional arrangements. However, the issues of current and long-term sustainable funding for L&D and for any institutional arrangements will likely continue to haunt the road to Paris.

Photo credits:

1) <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/38709469@N08/8699594602″>Dais</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/”>(license)</a>

2) <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/27825503@N04/10962769056″>Destroyed</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/”>(license)</a>

3) <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/65162298@N07/6029132512″>Ethiopische nomadevrouw met haar dochter</a> via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a> <a href=https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0.(license),/a>

4) Bing images