COP26: In Glasgow, twelve countries and regions, including France, pledge to phase out gas and oil – 20 Minutes

From our special correspondent at COP26 in Glasgow

There are the “$ 100 billion” of the COP15 in Copenhagen, in 2009. The countries of the North then promised to mobilize this amount each year, from 2020, to help the countries of the South to reduce and adapt to climate change. Besides, “and especially not to be confused”, insists Fanny Petitbon, climate expert for
the NGO Care France, there is the question of
“Loss and damage” [ou pertes et préjudices]. It is about repairing the already irreversible impacts of climate change.

For thirty years, the least developed countries and small island states have urged the countries of the North to take their responsibilities on this subject, by mobilizing funds to help them recover from the already real consequences of climate change. Most of the time, the issue has remained stuck in the tide of technical negotiations taking place in the COPs… Before coming to light this year in Glasgow. Fanny Petitbon answers questions from 20 minutes.

What do we mean by “loss and damage”?

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

Two types of phenomena can enter into these “losses and damages”: extreme weather events such as cyclones, hurricanes, floods, but also slowly occurring phenomena, such as sea level rise or land salinization, which makes them non-cultivable. It is a difficult subject because these “losses and damages” cover a multitude of impacts whose economic cost is not always quantifiable. For example, when there is loss of human life and forced displacement of populations.

Are all countries concerned?

Yes. There is no no more country spared from “loss and damage”. Typically,
the floods that hit Germany and Benelux last summer are part of. Except that these countries can face the economic consequences of these natural disasters. Germany released very quickly
30 billion euros to rebuild. The countries of the South do not have these capacities at all, although they are very often the first to be affected by the already real impacts of climate change.

This is particularly the case small Pacific island states exposed to sea level rise, to the point of already having to launch
relocation programs for their populations the most vulnerable. They go so far as to seek to buy pieces of territory in other countries. The whole challenge of the COPs is that the international community allocates funds to “loss and damage” and undertakes to distribute them as a priority to the most vulnerable countries.

What does the 2015 Paris climate agreement provide on this “loss and damage” issue?

We can go back even further. The least developed countries have for the first time put “loss and damage” on the table at the Rio Earth Summit, in 1992, when countries negotiated
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Ccnucc) *. It is a first failure, the “losses and damages” not appearing in the final text of this convention.

It was not until 2013 and the creation of “Warsaw international mechanism” for that to be the case. It has three functions: to define what goes into these “losses and damages”, to list the first responses provided, and finally to launch the reflection on the financing to be provided on this issue.

The Paris climate agreement [obtenu à l’issue de la COP21 de Paris, en 2015] is a second turning point. After having fought for a long time, the least developed countries obtained the inclusion of an article dedicated to “loss and damage” – article 8 -, while the countries of the North had until then refused to separate the subject from that of the ‘adaptation.
John Kerry [alors secrétaire d’État des Etats-Unis**] nevertheless obtained paragraph 51 at the same time, specifying that this article 8 does not give rise to “a compensation clause”. One way, for the countries of the North, to protect themselves from possible obligations to allocate funds in the name of these “losses and damages”. What they had not done, moreover, at the opening of COP26.

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

The report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last August, pointing
the multiplication and severity of the already real impacts of climate change, helped a lot. Is added
a general fed up with the countries of the South faced with the unfulfilled promises of the countries of the North on climate finance – we are still not at 100 billion – and faced with the little will they show to move forward on the issue of losses and damages ***. This fed up is all the greater since the Covid-19 pandemic has made it possible to realize the capacity of rich countries to quickly mobilize very large sums in the face of a global problem, which is also the global warming.

Finally, this COP26, arguably the least inclusive in history in view of the difficulties experienced by representatives of the countries of the South to come, had the effect of paying particular attention to the requests of these countries. Civil society organizations have been very influential in this regard, and
the Climate action network [réseau de 1.500 ONG Internationales] has made “loss and damage” one of the criteria for the success or otherwise of this COP26.

Are first advances already to be made at this COP26?

We can hope that it will finally move 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 mobilize 1 million pounds [1,17 million d’euros] for loss and damage. A drop of water certainly, when the most solid studies quantify
up to $ 580 million the amounts to be mobilized per year by 2030, in the name of “loss and damage”, just for developing countries. Nevertheless, this remains a first and it is all the more powerful since this initiative comes from a small nation, with a much lower GDP than other countries of the North.

The second poker move is the throw a commission of small island states, by Antigua and Tuvalu, in order to look at the legal options available to them to force the main emitters of greenhouse gases – countries and companies – to take their responsibilities. Clearly, since the countries of the North are reluctant to move the file forward within the framework of the CNUCC, Antigua and Tuvalu threaten to deport the file to the field of justice, in the same way that NGOs today attack States for climate inaction. However, this is what the northern countries fear: to be forced to open wide the financial floodgates on these “losses and damages”.

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

A priori, we should not expect, by Friday evening, new fundraising in addition to that of Scotland. On the other hand, the final decision of COP26 must explicitly call for additional funding on “loss and damage” and the need to think about mechanisms to distribute it in the future. It’s time to start building something. One goal could for example be to raise the first 50 billion euros per year by 2023. There are already plenty of ideas on the table. That in particular to be inspired by what the oil companies do, which put money aside, in a common envelope, which they release when a community is affected by an oil spill, regardless of the company responsible.

There is a subject further upstream, which is to help developing countries vulnerable to “loss and damage” to identify and reassemble their needs for technical solutions and financing to respond to the damage they are already suffering. It is a strong demand from these countries and for which was created the “Santiago network on loss and damage” at the COP25 in Madrid [en 2019]. The initiative aims to set up the equivalent of a technical assistance platform. But it’s still far from being operational, just a website …