“Pokers strikes that may eventually move the line on the question of “loss and damage”

From our special correspondent at COP26 in Glasgow

COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009 has “$100 billion”. Countries in the north pledged to raise this amount every year from 2020 to help countries in the south mitigate and adapt to climate change. Also, “and especially not to be confused”, says climate expert Fanny Petitban for
long care france, is the question of
“Loss and Loss” [ou pertes et préjudices], It is about repairing the already irreversible effects of climate change.

For thirty years, the Least Developed Countries and Small Island States have urged countries in the North to take their responsibility on the subject, raising funds to help them recover from the already real consequences of climate change . The issue is mostly stuck in the tide of technical talks taking place at the COP before it came to light in Glasgow this year. Fanny answers questions from Petitban 20 minutes,

What do we mean by “loss and damage”?

This component refers to the irreversible impacts associated with climate change. That is, those that are already real and cannot be avoided, even by investing massively in projects to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to zero and adapt to change.

Two types of events can enter into these “loss and damage”: extreme weather events such as cyclones, hurricanes, floods, but also gradual events, such as sea level rise or land salinization, that cause them Makes non-cultivable. This is a difficult topic because these “losses and losses” cover a lot of effects whose economic cost is not always quantifiable. For example, when there is loss of human life and forced displacement of population.

Are all countries worried?

Yes. Now there is no country that is spared from “loss and damage”. Typically, the floods in Germany and the Benelux last summer are one of them. Except that these countries may face the economic consequences of these natural disasters. Germany was released too early
30 billion euros for reconstruction. Countries in the south lack these capabilities at all, although they are often the first to be hit by the already real effects of climate change.

See also  Millions of dollars could be lost if G20 countries don't order their climate policies

this is especially the case small pacific island states Exposure to sea level rise, already at the point of launch
rehabilitation program for their population the weakest. They go so far as looking to buy pieces of the area in other countries. The COP’s entire stake then is that the international community allocates funds for “loss and damage” and undertakes to distribute them to the most vulnerable countries as a priority.

What does the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement provide on this “harm and damage” issue?

We can go further back. Least developed countries put “loss and damage” on the table for the first time Rio Earth Summit, in 1992, when the countries negotiated
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (CCNUCC)*. This is the first failure, “losses and losses” not appearing in the final text of this conference.

It was not until the creation of 2013 and “Warsaw International Mechanism” for that to happen. It has three functions: to define what goes into these “losses and damages”, listing the first responses provided, and finally initiating a reflection on the funding provided at issue.

Paris climate agreement [obtenu à l’issue de la COP21 de Paris, en 2015] There is a second turning point. After prolonged fighting, the least developed countries included an article devoted to “harm and damage” – Article 8 –, while the countries of the north refused to separate the topic from ‘adaptation’ until then. Had given. ,
john kerry [alors secrétaire d’État des Etats-Unis**] Yet at the same time obtained Article 51, specifying that this Article 8 does not give rise to “an indemnity clause”. In a way, for the countries of the North, to protect themselves from potential obligations to allocate funds in the name of these “losses and losses”. Plus, what he didn’t do at the inauguration of COP26.

See also  "The scenario of a carbon-free world economy should strongly influence the revenues of hydrocarbon producing states"

Why is this “loss and damage” issue emerging as one of the major themes in Glasgow?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report last August has been of great help, pointing to the multiplicity and severity of the already real effects of climate change. Furthermore, countries in the South are generally fed up with the unfulfilled promises of countries in the North on climate finance – we are still not at 100 billion – and face very little they will show to move forward. Loss and damage ***. It is fed up because the Covid-19 pandemic has made it possible to realize the potential of rich countries to raise huge sums of money in the face of a global problem, which is also global warming.

Finally, this COP26, Arguably the least inclusive in history Given the difficulties experienced by the representatives of the countries of the visiting South, the requests of these countries had the effect of paying special attention. Civil society organizations have played an important role in this regard, and
Le Climate Action Network [réseau de 1.500 ONG Internationales] This has made “loss and damage” a criterion for the success or otherwise of COP26.

Are advances to be made at this COP26 first?

We can expect it to eventually push the lines on “loss and damage”. There have already been two very interesting announcements. One, from day one, with the announcement of the Scottish Prime Minister to raise £1 million [1,17 million d’euros] for loss and damage, a drop of water of course, when most solid studies quantify
Amount to be raised $580 million per year by 2030, In the name of “loss and damage” only for developing countries. Still, it remains the first and is all the more powerful because the initiative comes from a small nation with a much lower GDP than other countries in the north.

See also  Scotland's independence, first Supreme Court hearing begins: analysis of the age-old question

second poker trick is throw a commission of small island states, Antigua and Tuvalu, the main emitters of greenhouse gases, to look at the legal options available to them to force countries and companies to take their responsibility. Clearly, as countries of the north are reluctant to pursue the file within the framework of the CNUCC, Antigua and Tuvalu threaten to deport the file to justice, in the same way that NGOs today blame states for climate inaction. attack. However, this is exactly what northern countries fear: being forced to open wide financial floodgates at these “losses and losses”.

What can we still expect on “loss and damage” by the end of COP26?

A priori, we should not expect new fundraising except in Scotland until Friday evening. On the other hand, COP26’s final decision clearly requires thinking about additional funding on “loss and damage” and the mechanism for distributing it in the future. It’s time to start some construction. For example a goal might be to raise the first 50 billion euros per year by 2023. There are already too many ideas on the table. This seems to be particularly inspired by the actions taken by oil companies, who put money in a common envelope that they leave when a community is affected by an oil spill, even if the company is responsible.

A further theme is forward, helping developing countries vulnerable to “loss and damage” identify and reassess their needs for technological solutions and financing that they already have. Victims can respond to the loss. This is a strong demand from these countries and was created for “Loss and Damage on the Santiago Network” At COP25 in Madrid [en 2019], The objective of the initiative is to set up an equivalent to a technical support platform. But it is still far from being operational, just a website…


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here