The issue of loss and damage has emerged as one of the top issues for negotiators at the Paris climate talks.

Swedish and Bolivian ministers have been leading the discussions on loss and damage, trying to iron out the issues.

But big polluters and wealthy nations refuse to be held liable for compensating climate-vulnerable nations for future impacts of climate change.

So what exactly does ‘loss and damage’ mean and why is everyone talking about it? And most critically, will we see a deal that everyone can agree to by the end of the week?

What is loss and damage?

There are some impacts of climate change to which it will not be possible to adapt – instead, we will be faced with residual ‘loss and damage’. This is when the efforts to try and mitigate or adapt to the impacts of climate change are not enough. Examples include Peoples and communities obliged to leave their countries and homes permanently; or the losses associated with destroyed ecosystems.

Those countries facing such impacts argue that there should be a specific stream of work to deal with them, referenced within the Paris agreement. Resistance comes from big polluters, who fear that establishing such provisions will open the door to future compensation claims.

So what’s the status of loss and damage going into the second week?

For small island states and some of the least developed countries, the question of loss and damage has become one of the most important aspects of the climate negotiations.

Tied into this discussion are other key elements of the Paris deal including climate finance for mitigation and adaptation as well as trying to keep the mention of an ambitious 1.5C global warming target in the text. The logic is that, if addressed, these issues on ambition and finance would mean countries hopefully wouldn’t suffer as much loss and damage.

At the end of the first week of climate negotiations one of the key issues was where loss and damage will be placed in the Paris package.

Developing countries want it in the binding agreement that is expected to form the core of this package. But some rich nations have been pushing for it to be included in a set of accompanying decisions that will not have legal force.

In a recent version of the text submitted on Saturday December 5th there were two proposals laid out for loss and damage.

The first option, proposed by the G77 – which has been described as a strong proposal – outlines a process mechanism for how to deal with issues such as displacement as well as permanent and irreversible loss and damage.

The second option is weaker “but if we have [both] on the table they’re both good to move forward on” described Julie-Anne Richards, international policy manager at Climate Justice Programme.

Sven Harmeling, CARE International’s climate change advocacy coordinator, described the text as “something technically manageable” adding that there have been improvements throughout the first week.

The issue of loss and damage has in the past provoked heated arguments and walkouts at previous conferences. For example, at COP19 in Warsaw in 2013, discussions over the issue broke down and the poorer countries walked out. An international mechanism on Loss and Damage did however emerge out of the Warsaw talks and it’s hoped this will be included in the Paris deal in some way.

“In terms of substance, this proposal would put the Warsaw international mechanism more at the centre and not establish a new one… It would provide a framework for going forward without defining what exactly needs to happen,” Harmeling explained. “If parties start to engage on that basis then I’m more optimistic we’ll get something useful.”

So what do the wealthy nations think?

The idea that developed nations bear a responsibility to compensate vulnerable nations for those extreme climate events which they cannot adapt to is very controversial for wealthier nations.

Many such as the US and EU are concerned that if liability and compensation were linked to this, it could become a massive legal and financial headache.

Both the UK and US have confirmed here in Paris that they will not accept the notion of ‘compensation and liability’ to be included in a climate deal

However, as with the nature of negotiations, compromises are struck. Ahead of the Paris summit, developing nations agreed to drop contentious words like compensation and liability. “The idea was to engage very constructively,” said Harjeet Singh of ActionAid.

This helped Washington and the European Union to recognise the importance of including loss and damage in the outcome of the Paris talks – but how to do that remains a sticking point.

Todd Stern, US special envoy on climate change, told reporters in Paris last week that the US accepts the concerns of vulnerable nations on this issue.

“We’re a supporter of dealing with loss and damage in an effective way,” he said. “We are working in a very co-operative and constructive way right with both the islands and the G77 on developing an outcome and a solution here, there are many players in this but we have been very engaged on this issue.”

“There’s one thing we don’t accept and won’t accept in this agreement,” he added, “and that’s the notion that there should be liability and compensation for loss and damage. In that regard we’re in the exact same place as virtually all developed countries.”

What can we expect going forward?

As the second week progresses many are optimistic that loss and damage will be inserted in the main body of the agreement.

Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists, described the “landing ground” as “some reference in the core agreement so it’s clear this is a core part of the agreement going forward.”

Meyer added that there is also a process underway to get the Warsaw mechanism reviewed and expanded upon during the next COP22 meeting in Morocco 2016.

Given that the issue of loss and damage is “younger” compared to discussions on mitigation and adaptation as E3G describes, any mention in the text is likely to be “brief and to the point”.

But we’re “at a very very critical moment” warned ActionAid’s Singh on the morning of Tuesday December 8. “This is a real life issue it is not a bargaining chip.”

Singh criticised the US for bringing the issue of ‘compensation’ back into the discussions after developing countries agreed to let that go in September.

“We don’t have time for any bargaining tricks, he said, adding it’s time to “engage really meaningfully” on issues such as displacement and permanent loss and damage.

“We’ve seen the Syrian refugee crisis and we have heard how it was [partly] fuelled by climate change. That was just a preview. We are going to see a lot more such realities and we need to prepare for that.”

Maina Talia, part of Vaitupu Island Youth and Tuvalu CAN emphasised the existential risk faced by the most vulnerable nations whose land is being devoured by the sea.

“I want to stress the connection between us and the land,” he said at a side-event in Paris. “There is a concept back home called ‘Fanua’. That same word we give to the land is the same word we give to the placenta to a mother.”

“If you give birth on the island we bury the fanua and plant a coconut tree on top signifying our connectivity to the land…this is how important it is for us not to go, not to leave…because we are connected, we are rooted to the land.”

“If we are to leave Tuvalu, it will become very different for a nation like Tuvalu to exist within another nation.”

He continued: “The loss of cultural heritage for us simply equals to death…losing someone’s culture and losing someone’s tradition simply equals to death.”

This post also appears on Energydesk.

Photo: UNESCO Jakarta via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

This weekend represents a major transition point in the COP21 Paris climate talks.

Negotiators who have been working away to shorten and clarify an international climate treaty will now pass on a draft text to ministers and their lead negotiators for an intense final week of high-level deliberations.

The nearly 200 countries involved in the talks hope to finalize a document by next Friday. There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done.

The key issues for all parties include climate finance — how wealthy countries will help developing nations transition off of fossil fuels and adapt to climate impacts — as well as loss and damage (which includes the issue of insurance and compensation), human and indigenous rights and whether the global climate treaty will lock in a 1.5 or two degrees of warming target.

A final issue has to do with the legally binding nature of the climate treaty and how the progress of countries — whether or not they are sticking to their own commitments — is reviewed (this issue is generally called MVR: monitoring, verification and review).

So here’s a quick overview of what we know about Canada’s view on each of these hot button points.

Climate Finance

Canada entered into the climate talks last week on a high note after agreeing to contribute $2.65 billion to the Green Climate Fund over the next five years for developing countries to transition to clean energy and cope with climate impacts.

In his opening speech on the first day of the talks, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told a crowd of international heads of state, “we believe that climate finance is critical.”

However, according to ‘fair share’ metrics that outline what percentage of climate finance Environmental Defense calculates a rich country like Canada should actually contribute $4 billion — every year.

The goal for vulnerable and developing countries is to have a perpetual $100 billion fund replenished annually by wealthy nations. This figure is recognized as a floor rather than a target for climate finance, meaning contributions into the fund should be expected to grow over time.

A major sticking point throughout the first week of negotiations is how to calculate what countries should pay, when and how that will be enforced on an international scale.

During press briefing representatives of Canada’s negotiation team told members of the press, “It’s no secret that climate finance and support for vulnerable countries is critical” to the talks.”

“Ambition, long-term vision and giving assurance to countries that we will be there to support them is critical to getting this agreement right.”

It’s interesting to note that Canada currently provides 79 times more funds in fossil fuel subsidies than contributions to the Green Climate Fund, according to Alex Doukas from Oil Change International.

Loss and Damage

Developing countries, which have historically placed very little greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, are suffering a disproportionately high amount of climate impacts.

Loss and damage is a mechanism to provide vulnerable nations with compensation for climate impacts they cannot simply adapt to.

“It’s about rising oceans, increasing pace of desertification, glaciers melting, land not being productive,” Harjeet Singh, international climate policy manager with ActionAid told COP21 attendees during negotiations last week.

Traditionally Canada has not been eager to support vulnerable countries deal with the impacts of climate change. This year, however, Canada highlighted “support for climate resilient development and adaptation in countries that need it” in its list of COP21 priorities.

It’s unclear at this point what position Canada will take on loss and damage during the coming week. The U.S. recently indicated it will not bear any legal compensatory responsibility or liability for damages in vulnerable countries. It is likely Canada will follow the U.S.’s lead on this issue.

Human and Indigenous Rights

Last week indigenous leaders from across the planet were outraged by the efforts of several nations including the E.U. and the U.K. to remove reference to human rights and indigenous peoples in the climate treaty text.

According to representatives of indigenous nations speaking on a panel hosted by the Indigenous Environmental Network, Friday these countries put the ‘s’ in the term indigenous peoples into brackets for potential erasure.

Crystal Lameman, member of the Beaver Lake Cree nation in the oilsands region of Alberta, said this felt like hurtling indigenous peoples 30 years into the past.

Canada has indicated that it is taking a strong position on this issue, working to keep human and indigenous peoples rights in the treaty text.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is an international treaty, which has been ratified by many nations. Canada’s Liberal government, which has plans to ratify the treaty soon, has been pushing hard in negotiations to retain the reference to human and indigenous peoples.

According to a new study, indigenous peoples around the world are the most effect managers of the world’s forests which represent a massive global carbon sink. In addition, indigenous communities are often at the front lines of both energy development and climate impacts.

For this reason, the indigenous rights network at COP21 in Paris, are fighting for clear reference to indigenous rights in the climate treaty, saying no true climate justice can be had by excluding indigenous rights.

1.5 or Two Degrees of Warming

Representatives of Canada’s negotiating team told press last week that ambitious mechanisms for emissions reductions are “crucial to get right” in the text.

Canada has not officially come out in support of the 1.5 degree warming target even though the vast majority of nations participating in the talks have done so. Nor has the new Liberal government outlined their specific climate commitments now that the Conservative government is no longer in power.

Trudeau has been roundly criticized for bringing Harper’s climate commitments to Paris. Those hoping the Liberal government would announce a more specific climate plan were left disappointed during these first week of talks. Although Trudeau’s speech at the outset of the negotiations indicated Canada is willing to play a constructive role in the negotiations and will work with other countries to stay within the two degrees of warming target.

Legally Binding Treaty

In Canada’s list of priorities for COP21, the government states it is in support of a “durable, legally binding agreement.”

However what aspects of the climate treaty are legally binding has been the source of much disagreement at during negotiations.

Before heading to Paris, environment and climate change minister Catherine McKenna told members of the press Canada would not support legally binding carbon reductions because the U.S. was unlikely to do so with a Republican-dominated Congress.

"Everyone wants to see the United States be part of this treaty," McKenna said. "There are political realities in the United States … they cannot have legally binding targets. We don't expect that the targets will be internationally legally binding.”

What burden of responsibility countries will bear under the climate agreement was a major source of contention over the last week and will likely continue to be so going forward.

What role Canada will play on this issue will likely be set by the U.S.’s position. 

Monitoring, Verification and Review

Canada has placed a lot of emphasis on transparency in monitoring, verification and review, saying a “common robust transparency and accountability approach” will go a long way towards providing assurances that “parties are doing what they set out to do.”

Getting this part of the climate agreement right is crucial for the “trust and confidence needed to enhance cooperation between parties,” Canada states in its list of COP21 priorities.

Canada has not previously supported any rules that require Canada to do more than other countries to reduce emissions. The E.U. and the U.S. have shared that position, saying they want common rather than differentiated rules.

Yet the current rules for reporting are too weak, Bill Hare chief executive of Climate Analytics told the Guardian.

Hare said going forward with the reporting requirements in place would means a “complete failure at the Paris talks.”

“It would mean we couldn’t check or track what developing countries are doing,” he said. “There would be no way of knowing what was happening.”

Image: David Meenagh via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.