Katowice: 'Loss and damage a red line, needed throughout climate rulebook'

Loss and damage is not an adaptation and needs to be reflected in the whole cycle. In communication, finance, and in the global stock-take, says a negotiator for the Least Developed Countries grouping

Loss and damage is a red line that is needed in all parts of the rulebook, says Gebru Jember Endalew, chair of the Least Developed Countries group for Climate Change. Speaking to Nitin Sethi, the diplomat from Ethiopia also explains why his group wants a clear decision on Talanoa Dialogue from the Katowice climate change negotiations.

One of the critical things that got stuck in the first week and was passed on to the ministers is differentiation, climate finance and, something I presume which is close to the interest of your group, loss & damage. Could you tell us more…

Well, overall there is progress being made because when we left Bangkok (in September) we had a number of options which required further streamlining and we started with those the first week. I think all the negotiators were able to come up with a round of three versions across all the thematic areas. That helps a lot to really minimise the text and also the options. It's a compromise that is a global landing zone which we all need to reach. Of course, everyone will not be happy. And the best landing zone is where everyone is not happy i.e. everyone loses and everyone gains. In that case, I believe that we are set out in the right direction. But in terms of priorities from the perspective of Least Developed Countries, we want to have a robust set of rules to be in place at first that will guide the future emphasis. And, it should not be a compromise to the lowest common denominator. So, we want to have a very ambitious rulebook in place.

The like-minded Developing Countries expect a strong degree of differentiation in the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs, targets under the Paris Agreement) and a full scoped NDCs (covering mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology).


Does the Least Developed Countries (LDC) grouping also require a full scope, reflecting all – mitigation, adaptation and finance?

For us, it's quite similar but it is about the balance between action and support. Okay. Balance, in terms of adaptation, mitigation, loss and damage, and support which enables finance technology and capacity. In terms of differentiation, I think the first key point the LDC group has been consistent with is we should not really renegotiate the Paris deal. We need to keep the integrity of the Paris Agreement, which is the baseline. We need to be ambitious, taking Paris as a starting point, rather than going backwards. So, we believe differentiation has been addressed in Paris (Agreement).

You believe that is the way it should be preserved at Katowice?

Yes. Yes.

US has said behind closed doors that it does not want any reference to costs with respect to loss and damage. Other developed country parties have also asked for the removal of the references to loss and damage from several places in the draft text. What would be a reasonable compromise on this for the LDC group?

We need to have a consistent approach in terms of the treatment of different articles of the Paris Agreement. Loss and damage is a separate article. It is not an adaptation and needs to be reflected in the whole cycle. In communication, in finance, and in the global stock-take.

Do you think the developed countries will compromise on this, considering they have always opposed loss and damage in the climate change negotiations?

For us, it is a red-line (non-negotiable). It needs to be part of everything.

We reported how the AILAC group has presented views different from other partners in the G77. Their views on differentiation, new and additional finance are different and that has diluted the G77 stance. We understand, their views differ from that of LDC as well. How do you see this going forward?

It's a bit difficult to come up with an aggregate G77 position. There is a diversified grouping within it. So, it's a bit difficult to have a consensus within the G77. Not only AILAC, other groups too have different views in different thematic areas. We need to agree on the definition of climate since there is no consensus on what is climate finance. Analysis done by one party or another give different definitions and different numbers. So, our request was to agree on a common definition of climate. That way you make it very clear and you will be able to identify which funding is new and additional. So, we need to resolve that before we discuss this issue.

But that is something that the US, the EU, and the Umbrella Group are not very keen on. Finance is something that we've not seen too much progress on -- article 9.5 remains a problem-- as we understand. Is that your understanding as well?

Yeah. But, I don't think that we should have a problem. Sometimes, you know some issues are kept as the last things. Without climate finance, it will be a failure. I don't think they have a problem indicating their future support.

But developed countries have concerns over a review of what information they provide…

Even our NDCs are indicative as it is a voluntary contribution. You may achieve less or you may achieve more. It's not subject to strong compliance. It is a facilitative process. Even if you don't achieve it, you can justify why you are unable to. I don't think this should be raised to a political level.

The other issue that will come up in the second week is how or what kind of decision or reference will come from the Talanoa Dialogue. What does the LDC group want out of the dialogue?

The Talanoa Dialogue is to be a facilitative dialogue and was mandated in Paris. They discussed whether we can achieve 1.5 degree Celsius or not? That was a fascinating discussion. The Fijian presidency took a participatory and innovative, inclusive approach. With that spirit, we were able to get inputs on technicalities from across parties and government organisations. That was really great. And the IPCC was mandated to develop science on whether there is a possibility of achieving it. This is because our NDCs were developed through a bottom-up approach. They were pledged by parties before Paris without knowing which direction we are going and this was done without getting guidance from the science. So, now we have the science and we know where we are. We know where we want to go. So, in this regard, this report needs to have a decision because the mandates were given. A decision has to be an outcome of the Conference of Parties (Katowice negotiations). The political phase will start here and continue in the UN General Assembly next year where leaders will be informed regarding where we are right now and where we want to go and how we can reach there. So, there will be a new invitation for leaders to consider when they are revisiting their NDCs to revise their targets.

So, you are suggesting the countries would be able to ratchet up the NDCs we have now before we get into the process of implementing them from 2020?

Some countries may be able to raise them. For instance, the EU has already set a new long-term strategy. Some countries have met their targets in advance so they will be hiked.

But the way some countries see it, the Talanoa Dialogue has focused mostly on mitigation and not climate finance. It has not kept the linkage intact...

When you increase your ambition you need support.

Sorry, I am trying to understand it better. The dialogue itself has not produced very strong content on finance so far from what I understand. It has focused more on the mitigation side.

Even for mitigation - financing is needed. In that regard, the IPCC has been mandated to state whether it is possible or not. After that, consider what is the cost implication. There needs to be follow-up work on what needs to be done. That's why we have been saying there needs to be a decision welcoming the report and then mandating Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice  (SBSTA, a subsidiary body of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) to take the work forward, which includes the announcement of cost implications.

But there are groups, I understand, who do not wish to have such a decision...

Why don't they like it? We have to do something. That does not mean we are forcing them. We should recognise the work that has been done at the request of the parties. There's no compulsion. If they don’t want to they can decide not to (ratchet up NDCs). But it's a guidance based on scientific evidence. That is how it should be.