The Philippines now finds itself in a position to once more shape the global direction of addressing loss and damage (L&D). 

More than a decade after the landfall of super-typhoon Haiyan changed how the world responded to the climate crisis, the country will host the board of the Fund for responding to Loss and Damage (FLD) for the next few years. This gives it a leadership role in determining how the Fund will run and function to provide much-needed support to those most affected by typhoons, sea level rise, and other impacts.     

This also puts pressure on the national government to not just set the tone for the administration of the Fund, but to prove it can match its global calls for climate justice with policies and solutions at the national level.  

Climate accountability 

The “Climate Accountability (CLIMA) Bill”, currently filed in the Philippines Congress, aims to accomplish two goals. The first is to hold big businesses accountable for their pollutive actions through stronger integration of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights into legal and policy frameworks.  

The legislation also seeks to further empower citizens to seek redress against these businesses for harmful practices that cause violations of their human rights, aligned with the “polluter pays” principle.  

The second objective is the establishment of a national fund for those seeking support after being hit by extreme climate change impacts. It can be seen as a domestic counterpart to the FLD, which makes how it is structured and operationalized just as important to the country’s strategies at the international scale. 

In Hurricane Beryl’s shadow, loss and damage fund makes progress on set-up

If enacted, the proposed legislation would be the first of its kind in the world, serving as a testing ground for some of the critical issues associated with responding to L&D that the rest of the world can follow. One such issue is determining which cases and claims would qualify as “loss and damage” – which is currently a subject of debate at the global level. 

Another issue is putting into practice attribution science, which looks at how climate change and the emissions that worsen it trigger and intensify specific extreme weather events. While still an evolving discipline, this will play an important role in determining just how liable polluters are for causing disastrous storms like Haiyan. 

Adapting current policies 

At the moment, there is no primary climate-related L&D policy in the Philippines. While mechanisms do exist for accounting for losses and damages, these largely cover the impacts and costs of extreme weather events, especially from typhoons and flooding. 
These mechanisms are also more oriented for assessing disasters that are not always climate-related and may not be suitable for assessing the impacts of slow onset events like sea level rise. Furthermore, they are not able to fully capture non-economic costs, such as loss of ecosystem services, impacts on mental health, and loss of cultural heritage. 

Sign up to get our weekly newsletter straight to your inbox, plus breaking news, investigations and extra bulletins from key events

Along with the CLIMA Bill, the time for a national L&D policy to respond to the climate crisis has never been better than in the next few months. The Philippine government has been actively updating its climate strategies, such as the National Adaptation Plan and an implementation plan for its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement.  

Any new law or policy responding to L&D must be in sync with strategies for adaptation and reducing emissions, along with the country’s positions at the Fund’s board and in other global decision-making processes. It must also effectively translate the global urgency of addressing L&D into potential interventions at the national level. 

Widening the responsibility net 

The L&D narrative has been largely anchored on developed countries and fossil fuel corporations needing to be held accountable for causing the climate crisis. Moving forward, this must continue to be upheld in global decision-making processes as the most vulnerable continue to seek and obtain justice. 

In a world first, Grenada activates debt pause after Hurricane Beryl destruction

Nonetheless, as L&D can be interpreted as climate risks and impacts that are beyond existing capacities for adaptation and mitigation, it means that accountability could also be applied to national and local governments, financiers of fossil fuel-related operations, entities spreading climate disinformation, and others that are enhancing these climate risks, impacts, and vulnerabilities. 

Through its statements at the global level and its new policies at the national level, the Philippines could pave the way for a new era in L&D governance. The process will not be easy. Big businesses, local or global, could insinuate that a new climate policy would hurt the economy. Finding enough funding or setting the criteria for who receives support will be difficult.  

Whatever it does, the world will be watching.

The post How can governments tackle loss and damage at the national level? appeared first on Climate Home News.

Its third and fourth Assessment Reports helped elevate adaptating to climate change into a critical issue on par with reducing emissions.

The United Nations-sanctioned organisation is in a position to once again push forward global efforts for addressing the climate crisis, especially on Loss and Damage (L&D).

Room for innovation

The outcomes of the 60th IPCC meeting were criticised for a lack of significant innovation regarding its seventh assessment report (AR7).

Despite proposals for a new structure of reporting, the body agreed to keep the current approach of three main reports and a special report.

Some experts and observers claim this approach is unlikely to produce any new groundbreaking findings on mitigation or climate science.

Switzerland proposes first UN expert group on solar geoengineering

As a result, it is unlikely that there will be a special report on L&D for AR7, despite support from many developing countries.

Instead, a chapter under the group report on adaptation is likely to be dedicated to discussing it.

Such an output comes at a time of record-breaking global temperatures and a potential collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

Without proper interventions anchored on the latest and best available science, even more people than half of the world’s population would be vulnerable to disastrous impacts of tremendous economic and non-economic costs.

A chapter on L&D would influence the entire corresponding landscape under the United Nations climate change regime, from how projects would be selected under the L&D Fund to how the Santiago Network would provide technical assistance to countries on dealing with extreme climate risks and impacts.

Non-negotiables

An L&D chapter on AR7 can lay the groundwork for countries to have a more common understanding of this issue, which is needed to accelerate implementation of solutions.

This would build on the key messages from the previous assessment report, with statements such as its uneven distribution across systems, regions, and sectors and how adaptation would not be enough to fully avoid it.

It falls on its authors to ensure that this part would cover as comprehensive of an assessment of current knowledge about L&D as possible.

Problems mount for Sahara gas pipeline, leaving Nigerian taxpayers at risk

This assessment must include not only peer-reviewed studies and publications, but also documenting indigenous knowledges and practices.

This would be a tangible way of improving the IPCC’s engagements with indigenous groups, a key issue raised from the conduct of the previous assessment cycle.

Another key outcome from the recent meeting, an updating of adaptation indicators, metrics, and guidelines, should be covered within this proposed chapter.

It should present an updated definition of “losses and damages”, which from the previous report is too broad; it should be defined to emphasize impacts and risks that are beyond the capacities of adaptation or mitigation.

Through this lens already commonly-used in many countries, refining and changing said metrics and indicators would help determine clearer boundaries between adaptation and L&D.

Argentine resistance hinders Milei’s forest and glacier destruction

It would also provide more specific guidance for countries and other stakeholders to determine soft and hard adaptation limits, especially at the local level, coupled with the proper provision of means of implementation.

The chapter should present the latest developments in attribution science, especially when downscaled into local contexts. It would contribute to building knowledge and capacities among local policymakers, implementors, and other stakeholders for responding to extreme weather events and preparing for, if not avoiding, future climate risks and impacts.

If our world is going to properly address the climate crisis, it needs to adjust its strategies with current and anticipated trends and impacts. This also applies to the approach of climate science, especially on loss and damage.

John Leo Algo is the National Coordinator of Aksyon Klima Pilipinas and the Deputy Executive Director for Programs and Campaigns of Living Laudato Si’ Philippines. He is an expert reviewer of Working Groups II and III chapters of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report.

The post Loss and damage must be a focus of IPCC’s next reports appeared first on Climate Home News.