The 27th climate conference (COP27) will be remembered for the victory of the small and developing countries, which resulted in the establishment of the Loss and Damage Fund. Developing economies such as India, Brazil, and South Africa have driven this demand. Vulnerable-20, a group of 58 countries (V20 group) most affected by the climate crisis, mobilised effectively in this regard. With a population of 1.5 billion, this group contributes only 5% of total carbon emissions. This is why the group was adamant about reaching a final decision on the loss and damage by developed countries.
Unity will be needed to save the Planet
At COP-27, international heads of many states spoke. It may not be surprising if John Kerry wins the next Nobel Prize for the environment, given US President Biden appeared to be praising the climate ambassador John Kerry, who used climate change as a diplomatic tool. On the other hand, the unusual manner in which British Prime Minister Sunak left the conference confused dozens of audience members during the CP27 event. Prime Minister of Barbados Mia Motley will likely be remembered as COP-27’s most influential leader. She criticised rich nations for the greenhouse gas emissions produced by them and also raised questions about why it is up to poor nations to collect the garbage now that has been created by them. Mottley spoke extensively during her speech about the need to update the outdated global financial system to reflect better current conditions, such as making it more straightforward for nations affected by the climate to access capital. The Prime Minister urged countries to accept responsibility because, without it, nothing would change in the world.
Why are loss and damage controversial?
According to the loss and damage theory, “loss” (loss) measures the harm climate change has done to the infrastructure, including buildings, ports, and roads. In contrast, the term “damage” has been used to describe the decrease in productivity brought on by climate change, such as unexpected temperature increases, shortened workdays, declining agricultural productivity, and a decline in tourism. Additionally, it is thought that climate finance is distinct from the loss and damage budget (Loss and Damage Fund) established to compensate for disasters (Climate Fund).
It’s not unusual to ask for loss and damage. Since Vanuatu in the Pacific Ocean first suggested a plan for high-emitting nations to direct money toward those affected by sea level rise in 1991, developing countries and small island states have been pressing for these kinds of funds. This fund is controversial in rich nations because they worry that contributing to it might be interpreted as an admission of liability, which could lead to legal disputes. There has also been a misunderstanding regarding its definition, specifically whether loss and damage constitute a form of responsibility, payment or damages.
In a way, this concept represents the compensation that small, developing, and emerging economies are asking for to recover from the adverse effects of climate change.
During the 2019 Madrid Climate Summit, a technical assessment programme for climate compensation was also developed. Currently, the United Nations and some development banks assist countries affected by climate change. According to a report, $ 580 billion will be needed by 2030 to adopt the loss and damage formula.
What will happen to Climate Finance
Scotland is the first country to set aside $7.9 million for climate compensation. Germany has promised 170 million, Ireland 10 million, Australia 50 million, Belgium 2.5 million, and Denmark 12 million dollars. Surprising is the ignorance of countries with the highest per capita carbon emissions in the world, such as America, Russia (the world’s second-largest per capita carbon emitter), the United Kingdom and the European Union. They initially opposed the Loss and Damage Fund, and since its establishment, they have been entirely silent on climate finance. It raises questions on whether this fund will have to depend only on voluntary donors and when and how it will be spent.
China’s response in Sharm el-Sheikh was also surprising. China, which ranks third in the world for per-capita carbon emissions, is looking for funding for climate change. The response of China was resented by European nations. A similar situation was seen in countries like Venezuela and Arab nations that profit significantly from oil and are the biggest oil-producing countries but were considering climate compensation as bailout money.
Thus, creating a compensation fund for climate loss and damage can provide small and developing countries with temporary relief. But, to find a lasting solution to the climate crisis, the world fraternity would have to focus on mitigating the effects of natural disasters rather than resolving their causes.
Implementation Strategy adopted by India in COP27
While the rich countries were busy twisting the final agreement to their advantage at COP-27 in Egypt, India took a bold step by presenting its Long-Term Low Emission Development Strategy at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In the midst of its ambitious development goals, India has demonstrated to the world its achievements and future commitments in the field of climate justice. India presented its significant newly launched initiatives in renewable energy, e-mobility, blended ethanol fuels, and green hydrogen as an alternative energy source.
India’s approach is founded on four key considerations that serve as the foundation of its long-term low-carbon development strategy:
- Despite having 17% of the world’s population, India has contributed little to global warming, with its historical contribution to cumulative global GHG emissions being negligible.
- India’s development requires a significant amount of energy.
- India is committed to and is actively pursuing low-carbon development strategies in accordance with national circumstances
- India needs to strengthen its climate resilience.
Furthermore, India stated at COP-27 that it would promote future sustainable, climate and resilient development through its Smart Cities initiative. The country will meet its NDC commitment (Nationally Determined Contribution) of 2.5 to 3 billion tonnes of additional carbon sequestration by forest tree cover by 2030. India had updated its NDC even before the Egypt Climate Conference was held.
Due to the voluntary nature of NDCs, this will serve as a mirror to those countries that have forgotten their promise made in the Paris Agreement. The LiFE (Life for Environment) mission was started by India sometime in this series. India has also demonstrated by fulfilling its commitments that any effort to save the earth will only be realised through an eco-friendly lifestyle. Rich countries that promised to solve the climate crisis were exposed during the Russia-Ukraine war when they turned energy into a weapon. The primary failure of the Egypt Climate Conference was the lack of specific progress in increasing economic cooperation for climate change solutions. The COP-27 agreement also states that to achieve the goal of zero carbon emissions by 2030, a $ 4 trillion investment in renewable energy projects will be required.
If developed countries refuse to provide $100 billion per year to developing countries to help them transition to a climate-friendly economy, how serious will they be about providing technology and expertise for green initiatives? However, by presenting a long-term low-emission development strategy, India has made the economic superpowers aware of their responsibilities while also sending a message to developing countries that blaming rich countries will not help save the environment and that everyone must take appropriate action.
Dr Harveen Kaur is an environment expert and Arvind Kumar Mishra is a public policy expert. The article was originally published on India. com. Link of the article: (https://www.india.com/opinion/the-road-to-loss-and-damage-formula-is-not-easy-27th-climate-conference-cop27-5778537/)
Comments