Source: http://elawreview.org/environmental-law-review-syndicate/towards-a-middle-path-loss-damage-in-the-2015-paris-agreement/
Timestamp: 2019-05-20 02:31:37
Document Index: 779666042

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 52', 'Art. 4', 'Art. 4', 'Art 4', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 52', 'Art. 52']

Towards a Middle Path: Loss & Damage in the 2015 Paris Agreement - Environmental Law
Home » Environmental Law Review Syndicate » 2015 » Towards a Middle Path: Loss & Damage in the 2015 Paris Agreement
By Maryam Al-Dabbagh in Environmental Law Review Syndicate, 2015, Environmental Law Review Syndicate
Topics: loss and damage, Paris Agreement
Maryam Al-Dabbagh is an L.L.M. student in Environment & Energy Law at NYU Law School, where she is a Graduate Editor of the NYU Environmental Law Journal. This post is part of the Environmental Law Syndicate. Click here to see the original post and leave a comment.
However, there are multiple drawbacks to the usage of insurance that prevent it from being considered the optimal financial measure for risk management in addressing L&D. For one, as mentioned earlier, the high level of risk for issues such as sea level rise would translate into prohibitively costly premiums for countries that may not be able to afford it,[17] and a regional platform may not be able to avail all the costs. Additionally, insurance is not a solution that can be used for all forms of L&D; its usage is customarily restricted to short-term, high-impact, extreme weather disasters.[18] Slow-onset events, which develop over the long term, present risks that are open-ended and difficulty to quantify, which has not traditionally proven popular with insurers. The same drawbacks also apply to customary financial mechanisms such as catastrophe bonds. As such, alternative financial mechanisms and tools should also be developed under the WIM.
Long one of the most controversial issues surrounding L&D, this issue was seemingly permanently settled by Art. 52 of the decision text, which reads: “Agrees that Article 8 of the Agreement does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation.” Developed countries had insisted on the explicit exclusion of linking loss and damage to liability and compensation, in return for anchoring L&D into the agreement.[19] The bespoke reluctance of developed countries to embrace L&D, based on their rejection of liability and compensation, was described as “creating a bogeyman that does not exist”,[20] given the fact that developing countries had removed any reference to those principles from their submitted text prior to the beginning of the Paris climate negotiations. Some took the inclusion of this clause as a failure for vulnerable countries, betraying their legal rights to compensation for the sake of a hollow compromise.[21]
The question yet to be resolved is whether or not any legal rights do in fact exist. The basis for any claims of L&D compensation would have been grounded in the principle that states should be held responsible for any violation of an international obligation.[22] Therefore, the first step is to determine whether or not cutting GHG emissions should be considered such an obligation on high-emitting states, the violation of which would function as a trigger for liability under standard principles of customary international law, or the text of any international treaties.[23]
It has been well established by science that 63 percent of global GHG emissions from 1800 to 2005 have been contributed over the years by just seven of the top emitting countries: the US, China, Russia, Brazil, India, Germany and the United Kingdom, and 82 percent of GHG emissions are the responsibility of the top twenty emitters.[24] Claims of compensation for climate change damages would be based on acknowledging the historical responsibility of such states for significantly contributing to the causes of climate change. Specific principles of international law that have been cited to support these claims include the no-harm rule and the polluter-pays principle.
Under the no-harm rule, considered the main norm under customary international law that is applicable to climate change, each State is obligated to prevent, reduce and control the risk of environmental harm to other states.[25] In order to be held liable, two conditions must be met: that the offending state has inflicted a serious amount of harm on the injured state, and that the offending state has through its actions failed to adhere to a required standard of care through negligence.[26]
States may be held negligent for failing to act upon their knowledge of the harm caused by climate change, amid growing consensus in the scientific community surrounding its anthropogenic causes.[27] However, the no-harm rule also requires balancing the offending state’s technical and economic capabilities against the damage inflicted on the injured state.[28] Determining this appropriate balance is where subjectivity becomes involved, since it weighs the territorial sovereignty of one state against the territorial integrity of another, making application of the no-harm rule controversial.[29] It is therefore unlikely that the no-harm rule would lead to any conclusive findings of liability for which emitting states would be obliged to pay compensation.
The polluter-pays principle mandates that polluters should bear the costs of compensating for the damage they cause to the environment and/or to human health,[30] therefore obliging polluters to account for the externality of the pollution they cause.[31] This would provide a convenient basis for those seeking compensation for L&D damage from historical emitters of GHGs (“polluters”). However, the main problem with attempting to use this principle in the context of climate change is the simple fact that, in the normative context, “polluters are discrete entities, their legal negligence is well-documented, and losses and damages can be clearly attributed to wrongdoing.”[32] This is not the case for climate change; the complex interconnectedness between GHG emissions and industrialization in practically every sector and nation in the world renders a clear-cut accounting of responsibility practically impossible. In the global commons, no one ‘herdsman’ can be held completely responsible, and therein lies the tragedy.
When it comes to obligations established by international treaties and agreements, Principle 13 of the Rio Principles established during the first Earth Summit in 1992 reads that “states shall co-operate in an expeditious and more determined manner to develop further international law regarding liability and compensation for adverse effects of environmental damage caused by activities within their jurisdiction or control to areas beyond their jurisdiction.”[33] However, no legal action has been based on this principle, whose explicit meaning does not seem to establish a distinct legal obligation. Attempts to establish liability based on UNFCCC Art. 4, which places climate change-related commitments on different countries, would also probably fail to provide a concrete basis for setting obligations that would bring about compensation claims. This is due to the vagueness of the requirements placed on countries to “mitigate climate change” under Art. 4(1). Although Art 4(2) is more precise, it applies only to Annex 1 countries, leaving out major emitters such as China and India.[34] This imbalance between the obligations placed on countries was a drawback of the Kyoto Protocol that minimized its effect, and would not constitute a viable basis for liability.[35]
First, developed countries rejecting liability often cite the fact that scientists cannot yet conclusively attribute certain events or L&D to climate change, given the high uncertainty associated with the contested accuracy of climate models and mechanisms currently used,[36] and the lack of good traceability measures.[37] Attributing specific weather events to climate change is already challenging, due to the disproportionate relationship between the intensity of hazards and impacts of disasters. Connecting the impact and damage that result from such events is exponentially more complicated, because of the complexity of the interactions involved.[38] Producing statistically significant trends is also practically impossible, given the scarcity of available data on historical weather-related disasters.[39]
Second, procedural and technical issues surrounding the likely form of climate change compensation also present a challenge to any injured countries. Reparations are typically made up of an apology, compensation and a guarantee of non-repetition.[40] Putting aside the fact that an apology would be politically unpalatable for the majority of high-emitting countries, questions remain regarding how the compensation should be calculated, and what form it would take. Additionally, which court would have the appropriate jurisdiction?[41]
Therefore, due to the lack of an international sovereign to ensure enforcement of such a judgment, countries could never be held truly accountable. No matter the underlying principles involved, to claim otherwise simply ignores the realities of imbalanced political power. Powerful, industrialized developed countries that are historically responsible for the vast majority of emissions prove as much by their assertions that demands for compensation are of mere moral character, and have no place in the negotiations. They emphasize that L&D should focus on building capacity to deal with risk,[42] and otherwise addressing the negative effects of climate change in a non-adversarial way.[43]
Regarding the legal outcome of Art. 52 of the Paris Agreement’s decision text, it should be noted that Art. 52 does not provide a completely conclusive justification for banning all future liability/compensation attempts by vulnerable countries. The closest equivalent to this clause is its opposite, stating the lack of exclusion of their rights for holding states responsible for climate change, submitted by four small island states, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, and Tuvalu upon signing the UNFCCC: “Understanding that signature of the convention shall in no way constitute a renunciation of any rights under international law concerning state responsibility for the adverse effects of climate change and that no provisions in the convention can be interpreted as derogating from the principles of general international law.”[44] Since there have been no meaningful precedents of action taken under these clauses, their effectiveness remains questionable.
Also significant is Art. 52’s location in the decision text, a section of the Paris deal that is not legally binding.[45] This brings about considerable ambiguity in terms of whether the clause shields conceivably culpable states from the long-term effects of their actions. One somewhat convoluted argument is that by mentioning liability and compensation at all, high-emitting countries have implicitly accepted responsibility for taking action to avoid the most disastrous outcomes of climate change, opening the door for claims in the future. Should worst come to worst and the displacement of millions is in the balance, affected countries might “take it to an international forum, and the gloves come off”.[46] This outlook acknowledges the political reality that state-versus-state cases were never meant to come about in the short term. Any future litigation would likely only be the result of a last-ditch measure of desperation by countries facing imminent obliteration, such as islands disappearing beneath rising seas.
Overall, whether or not the Paris agreement truly excluded liability and compensation as a possible option for developing countries to pursue, it does not appear to be a feasible option in the foreseeable future to obtain the help they need. One of the most important factors to consider when discussing effective ways of addressing L&D is that much of what constitutes L&D simply cannot be addressed holistically by merely demanding money to throw at the problem, and so liability and compensation would not fully address the issue. A more acceptable and, arguably, more effective multilateral basis for concretely addressing L&D is through a framework of solidarity and collective responsibility.[47] Developed countries could provide support through both funding and non-monetary assistance with coping capacity, under the WIM’s mandate.[48] One such example might be providing long-term loans at low interest rates to developing countries to advance GHG-friendly development, as recently suggested by an Indian official.[49] Whether developed countries will actually follow through on their promises to provide such support remains to be seen.
Examples of the first instance include the Urgenda case in the Netherlands. A citizen’s platform successfully brought a claim against the Dutch government for failing to discharge its duty of care to protect its people from the effects of climate change. The judge issued a ruling that mandated bringing emissions reductions of at least 25 percent below current rates.[50] Another example is the Leghari case, where a farmer brought a case against the government of Pakistan for failing to implement its climate change strategy, resulting in the court ordering the establishment of a new climate change commission. More citizen lawsuits have been filed in quick succession based on the success witnessed in these cases, including in Belgium, Australia, and the state of Washington in the US.[51]
A number of cases are currently being litigated that question the liability of corporations, arguably inspired by the 1990s crackdown on tobacco companies for damages to public health and welfare. Greenpeace Southeast Asia is currently preparing a suit to be brought in front of the Philippine Commission for Human Rights, against a number of high-profile fossil fuel producing corporations that profit from climate change-inducing energy, such as Gazprom, Glencore Xstrata and Exxon Mobil.[52] Another case involves a Peruvian farmer suing German energy giant RWE, requesting it to pay 0.47 percent of the estimated project cost to protect a valley threatened by a melting glacier, based on proportional liability for RWE’s 0.47 percent share of world emissions between 1751-2010.[53]
Another option would be to follow the example provided by the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, founded under the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. The Fund provides relief to parties who have suffered pollution damages from oil spills, and who then claim compensation.[54] These funds are financed through a fee levied on entities that purchase more than a certain amount of crude oil in a year. Thus, to obtain the funds needed to address L&D, a similar convention could be enacted to levy a fee on polluters that would be funneled into an L&D fund that would provide relief for countries or parties suffering from L&D.
Vidal, J. (2013) ‘Poor countries walk out of UN climate talks as compensation row rumbles on’. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/nov/20/climate-talks-walk-out-compensation-un-warsaw↵
Okereke, C., Baral, P., and Dagnet, Y. (2015) ‘Options for Adaptation and Loss & Damage in a 2015 Climate Agreement’. ACT 2015 Working Paper. http://act2015.org/ACT_2015_Options_for_Adaptation_and_Loss_&_Damage.pdf↵
Carbon Brief (2015) ‘Analysis: The final Paris climate deal’. Carbon Brief. http://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-final-paris-climate-deal↵
Paris Agreement (2015) FCCC/CP/2015/L.9. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf↵
Kakakhel, Kashmala (2012) ‘Loss and Damage – From Defining to Understanding to Action’. Climate & Knowledge Development Network.↵
In Decision 2/CP.19 (2013), the Parties acknowledged that “loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change includes, and in some cases involves more than, that which can be reduced by adaptation”.↵
Pacia, S. (2015) ‘COP21: PH will not cross ‘red line’ on loss and damage’. Philippine Daily Inquirer. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/746590/cop21-ph-delegation-loss-and-damage-red-line↵
UNFCCC (2014) WIM two-year workplan-18 September 2014. [Online] http://unfccc.int/files/adaptation/cancun_adaptation_framework/loss_and_damage/application/pdf/workplan_18sept_11am.pdf↵
Schäfer, L., & Kreft, S. (2014). Loss and Damage: Roadmap to Relevance for the Warsaw International Mechanism. Germanwatch (March 2014), at, 5.↵
UNFCCC (2014) _18sept_11am.pdf↵
World Bank (2006) ‘Overcoming drought : adaptation strategies for Andhra Pradesh, India.’ Directions In Development. Environment and Sustainable Development, World Bank.↵
Stabinsky (2015)↵
UNFCCC (2014)↵
Munich Climate Insurance Initiative (2012) ‘Insurance solutions in the context of climate change-related loss and damage’. SBI Work Program on Loss and Damage.↵
Democracy Now. ‘Loss & Damage: U.S. Stymies Push for Compensation for Climate Devastation at U.N. Climate Summit’. (2015) Democracy Now.↵
Stabinsky, D. (2012) ‘Tackling the Limits to Adaptation: An International Framework to Address ‘Loss And Damage’ from Climate Change Impacts’. ActionAid Int’l, CARE Int’l and WWF Int’l.↵
Sethi, N. (2015) ‘US pressure tactics work, clause excluding compensation option retained’. Business Standard. http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/us-pressure-tactics-work-clause-excluding-compensation-option-retained-115121200365_1.html↵
Alegado, J. (2015) ‘Crunch time for ‘loss and damage’ in Paris climate talks’.Rappler. http://www.rappler.com/science-nature/environment/115480-cop21-crunch-time-loss-damage↵
Sethi, N. (2015).↵
Faure, M. G., & Nollkaemper, A. (2007). ‘International liability as an instrument to prevent and compensate for climate change.’ A Stan. Envtl. LJ, 26, 123.↵
Shaw, M. N. (2003). International Law. Cambridge, UK; New York, Cambridge University Press.↵
Matthews, H Damon, Tanya L Graham, Serge Keverian, Cassandra Lamontagne, Donny Seto and Trevor J Smith (2014) ‘National contributions to observed global warming’, Environmental Research Letters.↵
Tol, R. S. J. and R. Verheyen (2004). “State Responsibility and Compensation for Climate Change Damages – A Legal and Economic Assessment.” Energy Policy 32(9): 1109-1130.↵
Voigt, C. (2008). “State Responsibility for Climate Change Damages.” Nordic Journal of International Law 77: 1 – 22.↵
Mayer, B. (2014). ‘State responsibility and climate change governance: A light through the storm.’ Chinese Journal of International Law 13: 1-40.↵
Voigt, C. (2008)↵
Khan, M. R. (2015). Polluter-Pays-Principle: The Cardinal Instrument for Addressing Climate Change. Laws, 4(3), 638-653.↵
Faure, Michael, and David Grimeaud. “Financial assurance issues of environmental liability.” In Deterrence, Insurability and Compensation in Environmental Liability. Edited by Michael Faure. London: Springer, 2003, pp. 194–206.↵
Wrathall, D., Oliver-Smith, A., Sakdapolrak, P., Gencer, E., Fekete, A., & Reyes, M. L. (2013). ‘Conceptual and operational problems for loss and damage.’ Population Environmental Research.↵
UN (1992): Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. Principle 13. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/conf151/aconf15126-1annex1.htm↵
UNFCCC (1995) Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop1/07a01.pdf .↵
UNFCCC (2014) Kyoto Protocol. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php .↵
Hulme M, O’Neill SJ, Dessai S (2011) Climate Change: Is Weather Event Attribution Necessary for Adaptation Funding? Science334: 764-765.↵
Mathew, L. M. and Akter, S. (2015) ‘Loss and damage associated with climate change impacts’, in: W.-Y. Chen, J. Seiner, T. Suzuki and M. Lackner (Eds.), Handbook of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation (1st edn.), Springer, New York.↵
World Bank (2013). ‘Building Resilience: Integrating climate and disaster risk into development. Lessons from World Bank Group experience’. The World Bank, Washington DC. http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SDN/Full_Report_Building_Resilience_Integrating_Climate_Disaster_Risk_Development.pdf↵
Huggel, C., et al. 2013. Nature Climate Change. Loss and Damage Attribution. Macmillan Publishers, Limited. doi:10.1038/ nclimate1961.↵
Burkett, Maxine (2009) ‘Climate Reparations’, Melbourne Journal of International Law.↵
The question of appropriate jurisdiction is too exhaustive to be dealt with adequately in this paper, but it does present a very real issue.↵
Hoffmaister JP, Talakai M, Damptey P, Barbosa AS. (2014) ‘Warsaw International Mechanism for loss and damage: Moving from polarizing discussions towards addressing the emerging challenges faced by developing countries.’ http://www.lossanddamage.net/4950.↵
Taraska, Gwynne (2015) ‘The Meaning of Loss and Damage in the International Climate Negotiations’, Center for American Progress.↵
Declarations of Kiribati, Fiji, Nauru and Tuvalu upon signature of the UNFCCC, 1771 UNTS 317-318.↵
Pashley, A. (2015) ‘Did the Paris deal rule out climate compensation?’ Climate Home. http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/12/18/did-the-paris-deal-rule-out-climate-compensation/↵
Rajamani, L. (2015) ‘Addressing Loss and Damage from Climate Change Impacts’. Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. l No. 30 http://www.cprindia.org/sites/default/files/articles/Addressing_Loss_and_Damage_from_Climate_Change_Impacts.pdf↵
Adler, B. (2015) ‘Here’s why the words “loss and damage” are causing such a fuss at the Paris climate talks.’ http://grist.org/climate-energy/heres-why-the-words-loss-and-damage-are-causing-such-a-fuss-at-the-paris-climate-talks/↵
Press Trust of India (2015). ‘Carbon Emission: Principle of Polluter Pays Must be Respected, Says Piyush Goyal’ NDTV. http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/carbon-emission-principle-of-polluter-pays-must-be-respected-says-piyush-goyal-1224856↵
Crosland, Tim (2015) ‘Vulnerable countries warned: Protect your legal rights in a Paris accord’. Climate Home. http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/10/23/vulnerable-countries-warned-protect-your-legal-rights-in-a-paris-accord/↵
Darby, M. (2015) ‘Around the world in 5 climate change lawsuits.’ http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/07/08/around-the-world-in-5-climate-change-lawsuits/↵
French, K. (2015) ‘A Peruvian farmer is suing an energy giant over climate change’. http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/2/9821758/climate-change-lawsuit-un-rwe-energy-vs-peru-farmer↵
International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (2015) ‘About Us’. http://www.iopcfunds.org/about-us↵