{"id":16915,"date":"2023-08-17T11:11:31","date_gmt":"2023-08-17T10:11:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/?p=16915"},"modified":"2023-08-17T12:04:08","modified_gmt":"2023-08-17T11:04:08","slug":"managerialism-versus-climate-justice-in-financing-loss-and-damage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/?p=16915","title":{"rendered":"Managerialism versus Climate Justice in financing Loss and Damage"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em>By David Rossati<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"602\" height=\"401\" src=\"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/Finance-Picture9.png\" alt=\"\" class=\"wp-image-16916\" srcset=\"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/Finance-Picture9.png 602w, https:\/\/gnhre.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/Finance-Picture9-300x200.png 300w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 602px) 100vw, 602px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Several commentaries on the latest climate negotiations at the UN hailed the creation of a new international climate fund as a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.wri.org\/insights\/cop27-key-outcomes-un-climate-talks-sharm-el-sheikh\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">historic breakthrough<\/a>. Unlike other climate funds, this entity will manage a new stream of funding dedicated to \u2018loss and damage\u2019 faced by vulnerable countries. Within the realm of the Paris Agreement and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), \u2018loss and damage\u2019 loosely refers to the economic and non-economic losses faced by vulnerable countries due to extreme and slow onset events triggered by climate change, such as heatwaves or sea level rise. In other words, loss and damage is a multilateral stream of law and policy, in addition to mitigation, adaptation, and finance which deals with some crucial and unsolved tensions of the so called \u2018green transition\u2019: those between industrialized countries and historical polluters on one side, and, on the other, the most vulnerable countries suffering the most from destructive climatic events to which they have contributed little or nothing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">But what is loss and damage about? Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.ipcc.ch\/report\/ar6\/wg2\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">its latest full report<\/a>&nbsp;on climate impacts found ambiguity in the definition. This makes policy action for loss and damage unclear. Yet, there is one question which the very expression \u2018loss and damage\u2019 surely entails and stands at the core of its institutional and legal development: who should pay for it and how?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The attempt in this post is not to give an answer, but to highlight two contrasting governance approaches or&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1111\/1468-2230.12442\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">styles<\/a>&nbsp;that seem to define the current responses to loss and damage payments and finance, including the new international fund as their the latest step.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The first perceives loss and damage as a management problem which experts should define and govern (\u2018address\u2019 in managerial speak).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The second sees in it a fundamental element of justice to sustain a global transition to sustainable ways of life.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These two different approaches can affect the relations of credit and debt between the sufferers of and the main contributors to loss and damage because of their contrasting ethos and differing policy solutions. Crucially these approaches do not work in isolation. Instead, they influence together the outputs of loss and damage &nbsp;governance which can take many forms, including some that are not normative at a first glance, such as \u2018<a href=\"https:\/\/unfccc.int\/process\/bodies\/constituted-bodies\/executive-committee-of-the-warsaw-international-mechanism-for-loss-and-damage-wim-excom\/workplan\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">workplans<\/a>\u2019,&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/unfccc.int\/santiago-network\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">\u2018networks\u2019<\/a>&nbsp;or \u2018<a href=\"https:\/\/unfccc.int\/process-and-meetings\/bodies\/constituted-bodies\/executive-committee-of-the-warsaw-international-mechanism-for-loss-and-damage-wim-excom\/fiji-clearing-house-for-risk-transfer\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">clearing houses<\/a>\u2019 for knowledge exchange. The clear imprints of each approach are difficult to distinguish from the many outputs under the climate treaties, but can be gleaned from the inputs of the many stakeholders involved in the process. However, as the two approaches entangle, managerialism prevails, by offering only partial solutions, \u2018new initiatives\u2019 or small incremental advances, which are out of pace with the vast and pressing needs of the most vulnerable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Managerial governance of Loss and Damage<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Managerialism has reigned as the key governance style across thirty-two years of loss and damage negotiations in the climate treaties. It all started with a proposal in 1991 by small island developing states to create an&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1111\/reel.12172\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">international insurance pool as a \u2018collective loss sharing scheme\u2019<\/a>. Today, the work on loss and damage is steered by a \u2018Warsaw International Mechanism\u2019, coordinated by an Executive Committee (ExCom), consisting of nominated government officials and experts, whose task since 2014 has been to \u2018enhance knowledge of\u2019 risk management, \u2018strengthen dialogue and coordination\u2019 among stakeholders, and \u2018enhance action and support\u2019 on finance, technology and capacity building. Throughout its \u2018workplans\u2019 the ExCom has set up expert groups and workstreams on loss and damage themes, including slow-onset events, non-economic losses, and human mobility. In parallel to this, loss and damage also branched off in a \u2018Santiago Network\u2019 for capacity building and technical assistance. So far, the ExCom\u2019s work has mostly engaged in theme-based \u2018sense-making\u2019 and coordinating activities to understand and share information on the various types of loss and damage and how these should be dealt with according to the input of experts and global civil society organizations. This process is still ongoing and growing with a new \u2018five-year rolling plan\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This approach reflects what Isobel&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.cambridge.org\/core\/books\/articulating-security\/0AE788677722A27DA25B44E34E82CFEB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Roele<\/a>&nbsp;has found about managerialism at the UN: a form of disciplinary power in the guise of technical appraisals, transparent processes of data reporting and verification, as well as the resort to policy documents and other outputs. Managerial solutions are presented as reasonable and necessary incremental advances from the status quo. However, the clear mismatch between the sluggishness of UN climate governance and the current state of the climate already gives a clue of its incompatibility with the timeframes of any a global transition compatible with a safe climate. At the same time, proposals from a climate justice perspective could speed up cooperation due to their perceived equity, but they are politically demanding, require radical changes and pose high economic burdens on the biggest polluters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Adding to the slow incrementalism of the ExCom and its work, the dimension of loss and damage as \u2018risk management\u2019 showcases the opposing views of managerialism and justice approaches on the question of payments towards solutions and reparations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Julia&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.tandfonline.com\/doi\/abs\/10.1080\/10383441.2020.1790101\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Dehm<\/a>&nbsp;has shown how risk management in loss and damage &nbsp;has developed over the years by gradually shifting the narrative: vulnerable states have been made responsible of taking the necessary measures to protect their peoples, ecosystems and livelihoods by having to source the finance for solutions themselves, while the support from rich states is insufficient and geared towards creating profitable spaces for the private sector. Vulnerable states should thus carry a financial burden for dealing with climate-related disasters. An illustration of the narrative is what the World Bank proposes in a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/thedocs.worldbank.org\/en\/doc\/449941523545801796-0340022018\/original\/casestudyfinancialproductsPhillippines2018parametriccatastropheinsurancepool8.15.2018.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">brochure<\/a>&nbsp;showcased on the UN loss and damage website: the solution devised is to allow governments and sub-national entities to \u2018access insurance markets\u2019 via a chain of reinsurance instruments with the Bank standing as the intermediary between the bottom \u2018local government units\u2019 paying premiums and insurance companies that will eventually profit from the scheme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Managerialism also favours a shift of responsibility for loss and damage through rather unusual governance outputs. A glaring example is the front page of the&nbsp;<a href=\"http:\/\/www.unfccc-clearinghouse.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">UNFCCC Fiji Clearing House for Risk Transfer<\/a>&nbsp;website, which offers a \u2018Find a Solution\u2019 button. After clicking on it, an initiative called \u2018<a href=\"http:\/\/www.unfccc-clearinghouse.org\/find-solution\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">RISK TALK<\/a>\u2019 appears: this is a community of experts connected via a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.starmind.ai\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">private app<\/a>&nbsp;and available to answer questions by registered users. RISK TALK was implemented by InsuResilience,&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/www.insuresilience.org\/about-us\/vision-mission\/\">a public-<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/www.insuresilience.org\/about-us\/vision-mission\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">private&nbsp;<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/www.insuresilience.org\/about-us\/vision-mission\/\">partnership<\/a>&nbsp;which aims to inspire \u201c[\u2026] policy and action towards strengthening resilience and protecting low-income and vulnerable populations from climate disasters\u2019 impacts by substantially scaling up the use of climate and disaster risk finance and insurance [\u2026] solutions.\u201d As country officials, local administrators and communities from vulnerable countries seem to be the target users, they are asked to register and make use of an app in order to access \u2018cost-effective\u2019 insurance solutions offered by development finance institutions and private insurance companies that are members of the initiative. Just the style of this initiative shows how managerialism can spin the entrance of private insurance schemes into an affair which, from justice-based perspectives, should rely on grants or other financial solutions that avoid increasing debt to&nbsp;<em>de facto&nbsp;<\/em>subsidize insurance markets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A Climate Justice view on financing Loss and Damage<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">From the view of justice or equity-based approaches, loss and damage is much more than the marketization proposed by managerial styles. It should involve a full assumption of responsibility, if not even liability, from the biggest historical polluters. Thus, under the work of the ExCom, civil society organizations and researchers have been calling for complementary policies to implement alternative forms of loss and damage payments or finance. A&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/sciencepolicy.colorado.edu\/students\/envs-geog_3022\/roberts_2017.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">study<\/a>&nbsp;in 2017 assessed such policies finding that these would entrust loss and damage finance with more equitable, sustained and predictable streams. The study looked at various innovative proposal, such as a \u2018financial transaction tax\u2019, an \u2018international airline passenger levy\u2019, or a \u2018fossil fuel majors carbon levy\u2019. All the proposals pointed at global fiscal policies that source money directly from the heaviest polluters to pay for loss and damage actions, including those for risk management. These more progressive solutions which made their way to the ExCom process via a&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/unfccc.int\/files\/adaptation\/groups_committees\/loss_and_damage_executive_committee\/application\/pdf\/browncdl-icccadfinancinglossanddamagepaperdraft.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">submission<\/a>&nbsp;of information in 2016 so far have clearly not seen any follow up in later outputs or artefacts. Instead, the 2019 \u2018<a href=\"https:\/\/unfccc.int\/sites\/default\/files\/resource\/FINAL_AA3_Compendium_September_2019%28revised%29.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Compendium on Comprehensive Risk Management Approaches<\/a>\u2019 of the ExCom dedicates only two pages to a section titled \u2018transformational approaches\u2019, where these more progressive fiscal initiatives could have possibly been featured.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Out of time managerialism<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Unpacking the opposing dynamics of management and justice to loss and damage can help understand some key challenges for the future international loss and damage fund. Vulnerable and other developing country coalitions have battled for long time for its creation. While this vehicle will never be capable to cover the full financing and compensation for loss and damage, it can channel or experiment more equitable forms of support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Still, managerialism seems inescapable also in this context. The latest Conference of the Parties (COP) has set up a Transitional Committee to determine the basic structure of this fund. It will be, then, again up to UN bureaucrats, state officials and experts to define its institutional governance and regulatory framework for the next COP. Only after that, the sourcing and disbursing money for loss and damage will finally follow. This reminds of the Green Climate Fund \u2013the flagship climate fund under the UNFCCC\u2013 which was also first conceived by a COP and a Transitional Committee: it took five years from its creation to finally approve \u2013and not even implement\u2013 the first project. This parallel tells that the slow incrementalism of managerial governance of loss and damage finance might push the whole enterprise \u2018out of time\u2019 to meaningfully fulfil the needs of those affected by destructive climate events. Yet, there is no risk management \u2018workstream\u2019 for that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>David Rossati<\/strong>&nbsp;is an Assistant Professor of Public International Law at VU Amsterdam<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Image<\/strong>: by the author<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Note:<\/strong> This blog was originally published in the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.developmentresearch.eu\/?cat=101\">Debating Development Research Blog<\/a> in June 2023.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>By David Rossati\u00a0 Several commentaries on the latest climate negotiations at the UN hailed the creation of a new international climate fund as a&nbsp;historic breakthrough. Unlike other climate funds, this entity will manage a new stream of funding dedicated to \u2018loss and damage\u2019 faced by vulnerable countries. Within the realm of the Paris Agreement and [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":513,"featured_media":16916,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[420],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16915","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-community"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16915","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/513"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16915"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16915\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":16926,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16915\/revisions\/16926"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/16916"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16915"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16915"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gnhre.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16915"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}