Loss and damage fund marks new ‘dawn for climate justice’
A person walks near the COP27 climate conference at the deserted hall at the Sharm el-Sheikh International Convention Centre, in Egypt’s Red Sea resort city of the same name near the end of the climate conference on November 19, 2022. (Photo by AHMAD GHARABLI / AFP)
SHARM EL SHEIKH, Egypt — Following two weeks of long, intense UN-backed climate negotiations at the 27th Conference of the Parties (COP27), world leaders from 196 countries have finally agreed to establish a fund to compensate countries that suffer the most from climate-induced disasters yet contribute little to global warming.
“The agreement for a loss and damage fund marks a new dawn for climate justice. Governments have laid the cornerstone [for] a long overdue new fund to deliver vital support to vulnerable countries and communities who are already being devastated by the accelerating climate crisis,” said Yeb Saño, Greenpeace Southeast Asia executive director and former negotiator for the Philippines.
The issue ended up being the thorniest at COP27 after developing countries, including the Philippines, made strong and repeated appeals for the fund’s establishment, even leading to a two-day extension of the talks as negotiators struggled to find common ground. The two-week summit was supposed to end on Friday.
“The inspiration we can draw from the successful establishment of the loss and damage fund in Sharm El-Sheikh is that if we have a long enough lever, we can move the world, and today, that lever is the solidarity among civil society, front-line communities, and developing countries most impacted by climate crisis,” Saño added.
Climate expert Tony La Viña of the Manila Observatory said the fight on the establishment of the fund began way back in 1996 when developing countries wanted a Clean Development Fund to be funded by developer countries as compensation for their historical emissions. But that was hijacked in Kyoto by developed countries and became the Clean Development Mechanism that allowed offsets and credits.
Article continues after this advertisementCoal, other issues
“This was a solid and good outcome. This time, the developing countries did not blink and had their eye on the ball. There was huge resistance by developed countries but that crumbled slowly because of the weight of the moral imperative which translated into political pressure. I was one of the few who was sure we would have a good outcome on loss and damage but I did not expect it to be this strong,” La Viña explained.
Article continues after this advertisementOne thing that should be highlighted, he said, is the role of Vice Yu, a Filipino lawyer, in the loss and damage negotiations as lead for the Group of 77 and China. It’s a pity that he no longer represents the Philippines. The Marcos government should bring him back and ask him to join the delegation again. Overnight, we will gain influence in the process as we used to before. Vice will continue to lead the Group of 77 in the loss and damage negotiations as details of the Fund will have to be worked out. He is also leading G-77 in the global stocktake discussions.
“The loss and damage victory is good. But we must also now pay attention to the global stocktake to be finalized by 2025 where the next generation of mitigation commitments will probably be made,” La Vina said.
While the agreement was seen as a welcome step in the right direction, there appeared to be little forward movement on other key issues, particularly on the phaseout of fossil fuels, the $100 billion climate finance pledge by rich countries for climate adaptation and achieving the 2015 Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.
Rodne Galicha, lead convenor of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas representing 1,500 civil society groups, pointed out that urgent actual actions also need to be realized.
“The Philippines being one of the most vulnerable countries, the compensation will secure assured much-needed funding. However, financial arrangements will not fully address loss and damage as high risks of further losses and damages are forthcoming unless we completely phase out all fossil fuels,” Galicha said.
The country generates about 60 percent of its electricity from coal, although in 2020, a moratorium was imposed on proposals to build new coal-fired plants.
According to the Department of Energy, there are 21 coal operating contracts in the development phase and production phase, six coal operating contracts in the exploration phase, and 47 small-scale coal mining operators as of May this year.
Gerry Arances, executive director of the Center for Energy, Ecology and Development, said the Philippines and other countries must act on a rapid and just phaseout of all fossil fuels.
“Advancing the recognition of the need to address loss and damage is a positive step forward, especially for vulnerable peoples, but such a gain is undermined by a COP that ultimately fails to signal the phaseout of all fossil fuels,” he said.
“More coal, gas, and oil means abandoning the 1.5°C ambition. Going beyond 1.5°C means even more unspeakable loss and damage,” Arances added.
PH interventions
New research released this week by climate think tank Climate Analytics stated that for the country to align to keeping global temperature rise to no more than 1.5°C from pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, it must phase out its use of coal and gas by 2035, and raise the share of renewables in the power mix to 80 percent and 83 percent by 2030 toward full transition by 2040.
Super Typhoon Yolanda (international name: Haiyan) and other destructive typhoons that left thousands dead and caused millions of pesos in damage made it clear how highly vulnerable the country is to the devastating impacts of climate change.
In past climate negotiations, the Philippines took leadership and succeeded in pushing for the inclusion of a 1.5°C goal in the 2015 Paris Agreement on Climate Change, together with 43 other climate-vulnerable countries.
But at COP27, the lack of designated Philippine negotiators limited the country’s interventions on the negotiations table to only four out of 32 agenda items: emissions avoidance, adaptation, finance, and loss and damage.
