Climate change

The language of loss and damage

The story of loss and damage in global climate negotiations is a triumph of persistence and diplomacy. But there is still a long way to go and more work to be done.

Coral reef. Susan White, USFWS CC BY-NC 2.0
Edited by Tracy Zussman
Meet the editor

Despite international efforts to address the causes of global climate change and to support adaptation it has become increasingly clear that these efforts will not be sufficient to prevent all future negative impacts resulting from our changing climate.

The term “loss and damage” has emerged as a way of describing these now unavoidable impacts. “Loss” applies to the complete and irreversible disappearance of something - human lives, habitats, or even whole species. “Damage” refers to something that can be repaired, such as infrastructure. While loss and damage typically refers to the economic, quantifiable consequences of climate change, the term can also apply to culture and traditions that are lost due to climate impacts.

We don’t know exactly what the human and environmental cost of loss and damage will be but we do know that the countries and communities that are most vulnerable and will be most adversely affected - due to their lack of capacity and resources to adapt and cope – are those that have contributed very little to global greenhouse gas emissions. For those countries loss and damage is an issue of injustice as it means that they are handed the burden and responsibility to adapt and prevent future damage  but have the least resources available to do so.

Within the framework of global climate change negotiations these countries and their supporters have pushed for action to address this injustice, attribute liability and ensure that the vulnerable countries are adequately compensated.

Perhaps unsurprisingly developed countries  were uncomfortable with terms like “liability” and have resisted this framing of loss and damage preferring to see it more as a technical problem of how to deal with risk and uncertainty.

As a result the story of loss and damage in global climate negotiations is quite protracted! It is also a story of tremendous persistence and diplomacy. But perhaps most of all it is a story about language.

Continue reading: A quick chronology

Meet the author

Alan Stanley 

A quick chronology

 As far back as 1991 Vanuatu, on behalf of the Alliance of Small Island States, made a proposal for countries to pay into an insurance mechanism to address their future losses due to sea level rise. This didn’t succeed and work on loss and damage didn’t really start to gain momentum until the Bali Climate Change Conference (COP 13) in 2007 which called for increased understanding of risk management, risk reduction, risk sharing and risk transfer. After this, work presented in Cancun (COP 16, 2010) led to the adoption of a work programme to specifically address loss and damage impacts from climate change and this in turn helped encourage participating countries to call for the establishment of institutional arrangements on loss and damage two years later at COP 18 in Doha.

Discussions on the issue reached a pivotal moment in Poland in 2013 with the creation of the Warsaw International Mechanism on loss and damage (WIM). The mechanism put in place the framework for research, dialogue and capacity building to support the loss and damage agenda within the UNFCCC process. The WIM was, ultimately, enshrined in the 2015 Paris Agreement where loss and damage was finally acknowledged as a stand-alone element, separate from adaptation and mitigation measures.

Continue reading: Shifting definitions

RECOMMENDED READING:

Options for Adaptation and Loss & Damage in a 2015 Climate Agreement
World Resources Institute, Washington DC, 2014
Loss and damage (L&D) is rapidly becoming a significant focus of international climate agreements, following the failure to-date of developed countries to adequately stem greenhouse gas emissions, and a number of high profile, and costly, extreme weather events. This ACT2015 paper explores some of the key issues relating to adaptation and L&D, and outlines options for addressing them in the 2015 agreement.
Chronology - Loss and Damage
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2016
Official UNFCCC chronology detailing the process and negotiations leading up to the creation of the Warsaw International Mechanism on loss and damage and the subsequent inclusion of loss and damage in Article 8 of the Paris Agreement. The chronology goes back as far as 2011.

Shifting definitions

The Paris Agreement’s inclusion of loss and damage should be seen as a major accomplishment for the small island states and countries like Bangladesh that have worked tirelessly on this issue for decades. It also represents a good advert for international diplomacy more broadly – not something we get to say often these days. To understand how we got to this outcome we need to look at how the language of loss and damage has shifted over the years.

The Road to Paris: loss and damage (episode 2)

Speaking prior to the Paris Agreement, Saleemul Huq explains the issues surrounding loss and damage from the perspective of the Least Developed Countries.

At the outset the term loss and damage, driven by developing countries sense of injustice, was primarily used within the context of liability and compensation, "victims" and "perpetrators", cause and effect. But analysis of UNFCCC dialogue has shown that in the decade from 2003 onwards a new rhetoric gained ground that presented the problem of loss and damage as more one of risk and uncertainty. This, helpfully for the wealthier nations, pointed towards solutions based on creating reactive systems - risk reduction strategies, building resilience, and risk-sharing mechanisms, such as insurance – rather than the prospect of legal measures and litigation.

This definition also allowed the question of whether loss and damage should be dealt with under existing climate change adaptation work streams and even whether it should fall under the UNFCCC framework at all - maybe Disaster Risk Reduction frameworks might be more appropriate mechanisms.

From the Bali conference on, though, the language shifted again as a broader and more ambiguous framing emerged. And it was this, ultimately, that enabled agreement to be reached firstly in Poland, with the creation of the Warsaw International Mechanism and  later in Paris which saw loss and damage finally enshrined as its own distinct work area within the UNFCCC process.

Continue reading: Looking ahead

RECOMMENDED READING:

Framing climate change loss and damage in UNFCCC negotiations
Global Environmental Politics, 2016
How does an idea emerge and gain traction in the international arena when its under-pinning principles are contested by power ful players? The adoption in 2013 of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage as part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) puzzled observers, because key state parties, such as the United States, had historically opposed the policy. This article examines the roles of frame contestation and ambiguity in accounting for the evolution and institutionalization of the “loss and damage” norm within the UNFCCC.
Strategic Ambiguity: How Loss and Damage Became a Part of Global Climate Policy
Wilson Center, 2016
This guest blog post on the Wilson Center's New Security Beat blog provides a useful overview of how the changing, and increasingly ambiguous, language and definitions used to describe loss and damage in global climate change negotiations ultimately allowed agreement to be reached. The article charts the history of the debate around loss and damage leading upt ot the agreement of the Warsaw International Mechanism and the subsequent Paris Agreement.
Conceptual and operational problems for Loss and Damage
Loss and Damage in Vulnerable Countries Initiative, 2013
This paper aims specifically at addressing concerns implicit to loss and damage (L&D) policy as articulated by the most vulnerable countries. The paper aims to clarify the meaning of the policy paradigm of L&D, to warn of possible misinterpretations, and to raise conceptual and practical concerns. It also highlights L&D’s potential importance. It begins by tracing the development of the concept, its use in risk-transfer contexts, and its use and definition in the UNFCCC.
Loss and damage: some key issues and considerations for SIDS expert meeting
Third World Network, 2016
The series of expert meetings under the UNFCCC on a range of approaches to address loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including impacts related to extreme weather events and slow onset events, is a significant element of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) work programme on loss and damage.

Looking ahead

In the final analysis it seems likely that this more ambiguous terminology allowed the different country negotiators to find common ground. It meant that both sides could be seen to be retaining their historical positions but still move forward. Whether this lack of a detailed definition will help or hinder in the longer term though remains to be seen. Certainly, as  Emily Boyd points out “it is difficult to have practical conversations about actions to address loss and damage and science to support these actions, if different stakeholders have contrasting perceptions and definitions in mind.”

The evolution of the language around loss and damage, and the resulting ambiguity, has also allowed liability and compensation as concepts to be entirely excluded from the Paris Agreement. Whilst this exclusion is a key reason why it was possible for agreement to be reached it came about as the result of a deeper underlying problem - the problem of measuring and attributing loss and damage resulting from climate change. The science of how to separate climate impacts from natural background variation in weather patterns, and to assign a value to those losses, is still very much an emerging field of study. Indeed it could be argued that some losses can’t or shouldn’t be quantified in this way – loss of culture and identity for example.

And even if the science can be perfected and these issues resolved we’re still some way from determining who pays for loss and damage. Should the fossil fuel industry be paying directly and if so how much?

All in all the achievements of the negotiators who meet each year to move this agenda forward, sometimes painfully slowly, sometimes with significant setbacks and backwards steps, should be celebrated. But there is still a long way to go and a lot more work to be done.

After the success of the Paris Agreement loss and damage was relatively low on the agenda in Marrakech but 2017 sees Fiji assume the presidency of the COP which should give significant momentum to the issue.

Continue reading: Back to introduction

RECOMMENDED READING:

“Loss and Damage” and “Liability and Compensation” – What’s the Difference and Why Does It Matter?
Wilson Center, 2016
An article on the Wilson Center's New Security Beat blog that examines how the langauge used to describe loss and damage resulting from climate change shifted away from talking about liability and compensation towards a definition that was more about risk and uncertainty.
Pushed to the limit: Evidence of climate change-related loss and damage when people face constraints and limits to adaptation
United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security, 2013
Research report assessing climate change related loss and damage and evidence of subsequent societal impacts. Climate change related loss and damage undermines adaptation, and can impede progress in improving human well-being. Yet there is currently a lack of empirical evidence of the circumstances under which households manage climatic stressors, the resulting societal impacts, and the loss and damage that results from not being able to adjust sufficiently.
Loss and Damage: Roadmap to Relevance for the Warsaw International Mechanism
Germanwatch, 2014
Roadmap document outlining possible structure and activities for the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage. COP 19 in Warsaw decided to establish the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM) under the Cancun Adaptation Framework, so as to address loss and damage in developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change. As part of that agreement, it was requested that the Executive Committee of the WIM develop an initial two-year work plan for the implementation of the mechanism’s functions.
Carbon majors funding loss and damagae
Heinrich Böll Stiftung Southern Africa, 2014
Discussion paper proposing levies be placed on those entities most responsible for emissions, to fund the Warsaw International Loss and Damage Mechanism. As the impacts of climate change continue to worsen, many of those who will be most impacted will have done the least in terms of contributing to the emissions rise responsible for the changing climate. Whether it is those suffering droughts in the Sahel region of Africa, or the poor in Bangladesh at risk of rising sea-levels and more severe storms, people are already suffering loss and damage, and can expect worse to come.
Typologies of Loss and Damage and associated actions
Environmental Change Institute, 2016
Loss and Damage (L&D) has emerged as a key area in international climate policy with actions to address L&D being developed under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).Developing this policy and related actions is relevant to a wide range of stakeholders who express a range of perspectives on L&D.
Climate Justice: The international momentum towards climate litigation
Heinrich Böll Foundation - European Union, 2016
The Paris Agreement is ground breaking yet contradictory. In an era of fractured multilateralism it achieved above and beyond what was considered politically possible – yet it stopped far short of what is necessary to stop dangerous climate change. In the Paris Agreement, countries agreed to pursue efforts to limit warming to 1.5C, yet the mitigation pledges on the table at Paris will result in roughly 3C of warming, with insufficient finance to implement those pledges.
Making a killing: who pays the real costs of Big Oil, Coal and Gas?
Heinrich Böll Foundation - European Union, 2016
The single biggest cause of climate change is burning fossil fuels. The Carbon Majors - who include big coal, oil and gas - have extracted fossil fuels responsible for roughly two thirds of climate change pollution. This paper proposes a Carbon Levy - a global levy on all fossil fuel extraction, to be paid into an international Loss and Damage Mechanism to help the most vulnerable facing the worst impacts of climate change. Climate finance is already inadequate, with a huge gap between what is needed and what is provided.