Loss, Damage, and Justice in Global Climate Policy
For 30 years, heads of state and diplomats have met at the Conference of the Parties (COP), to negotiate solutions to urgent climate challenges. Usually, coverage of the conferences celebrates successfully signed policies and handshakes in the aftermath of the mega events. But how are these agreements actually reached?
In recent years, the term “loss and damage” has emerged as a framework through which ideas of climate justice are articulated within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Since COP28 in 2023, loss and damage have entered governance by the establishment of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage.
But Vanhala points to a long list of challenges to implementing the work that the Fund sets out to do. There is no agreement on the definition of loss and damage. The language used is deliberately ambiguous to make the question around responsibility impossible and ultimately postpone leadership obligation and liability. Beyond the unclear language, the Fund is of a meagre size. About 700 million USD was pledged and only a dwindling half has been paid. Moreover, in order to receive funding, communities face a cumbersome application process. Resources risk going to bureaucracy instead of local organisations on the ground. Aid is often reimbursed reactively not proactively.
This article is based on an interview with professor of Political Science at the University College London Lisa Vanhala conducted by CApE postdoc Anna Kirstine and written by CApE writer Semine Long-Callesen. It is part of an article series published by the Center for Applied Ecological Thinking at the University of Copenhagen with Resilience.org.
Read the full article "Loss, Damage, and Justice in Global Climate Policy" at resilience.org.