Will Bangladesh be "compensated" for loss and damage?
Bangladesh is in the frontlines of mounting costs of climate change. With the United Nations Summit on Climate Change scheduled to start on November 30 in Paris, it is not too unbecoming to ask, "What's in it for Bangladesh?" Are we going to be compensated for the billions of dollars we might potentially lose if the global temperature increases by 3.5°C as projected, and rivers rise, salt water inundate our coastal areas, and the weather pattern displays all the effects of warming? Or are we going to just take what we get and try to manage the best we can?
The issue of money is always a tricky one, and like all families which face financial troubles and hardship following a catastrophe, the conventioneers at the Climate Summit and the organisers will reasonably try to stay clear of any bickering centred on the three critical questions that need to be addressed:
What is the full extent of loss and damage incurred by each country?
How much resource is available each year until 2050 to manage the damage, adopt, and adapt greener technologies?
How is funding going to be administered and divided up among the less developed countries and small island nations?
It is not my intent to debate these questions here nor offer detailed answers. Nonetheless, I do want to point out that now that we know the promised cuts in emissions and levels of financial commitments from the affluent countries, Bangladesh needs to raise its voice and ask for a fair share of the funds available to support us as we adopt, mitigate, and adapt in the face of climate change. As we argue and deal with other parties at Paris, we need to have a clear stance on two key issues. One of them is that Bangladesh and other countries that can be considered to have credit in terms of CO2 emissions, have a legitimate need for financing. The other one is that the mechanism for "loss and damage" arbitration must be formally adopted at the Paris Summit.
According to new research done by Prof Damon Matthews of Concordia University in Montreal, Canada, every citizen of US and Australia owes $12,000 in carbon debt. This amount only takes into account the excess emissions since 1990. Since lifestyles in these countries are dependent on higher level of CO2 emissions, as compared with those who live "off the grid", so to speak, countries are broken down into "creditor" and "debtor" nations. A debtor nation like the US has incurred climate debts defined as the amount by which its climate contributions have exceeded a hypothetical equal per-capita share over time. Using the estimate provided by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that each tonne of CO2 emissions causes $40 in damage, Prof Matthews estimates that the US has incurred a debt of $4 trillion during the period 1990-2013. He has also suggested that each citizen of India, as a creditor nation, is owed $2,500 per capita for their lesser contribution to carbon emissions (see chart).
While nobody expects that these estimates will be translated into real claims at Paris, these numbers are indicative and provide a frame of reference for the terms of the conversation. It can be expected that the bloc Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) which represents 44 islands and low-lying countries, will have a legitimate demand should they decide to force the hands of the richer countries once the initial hoopla dies down. While the term "compensation" is strongly opposed by the US and other big emitters and will not be included in the final agreement, Bangladesh could, as a leader of the LDC group, make all out efforts to bolster the financial aspect of the Paris Agreement.
Finally, the Paris Agreement must set in motion the mechanism to allocate financing according to "loss and damage" sustained by the countries that have grouped together under the less developed countries (LDC) and small island developing states (SIDS) banners. In 2013, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the host of the Climate Summit, established the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (the WIM) to address the issue. However, there is growing apprehension that the Paris Summit might sideline the "loss and damage" component and address it only in the footnote, if at all. A number of countries have joined forces to register in the strongest terms that WIM must be part and parcel of any climate agreement. "Many developed countries are arguing that the Warsaw Decision set a different timetable for this issue, which would mean that loss and damage is not currently set to be decided on as part of the Paris Agreement, unlike the issues of adaptation, mitigation, and finance," (The Road Through Paris, "Loss and Damage"). Bangladesh should be at the forefront of countries that foil such moves!
The writer is an economist, and drafted the Economists Report on Bangladesh's National Environmental Management Action Plan (NEMAP).
Comments