Nearly 200 countries, including the European Union, agreed on a historic step to expand payments to countries vulnerable to climate change when they announced approval for the formation of the Loss and Damage Fund.

NCEJ

By: Hanin Abu Alrub

Had the agreement not been agreed, the Sharm el-Sheikh summit would have been considered an undisputed failure. That is why the summit was held in an African country, and it does not matter that it is Arab, and since the African continent is the most affected by climate problems, this decision had a distinctive impact.

What was agreed upon?

In short, it was agreed that the largest emitter of carbon in the atmosphere would have to pay large sums of money to the poorest countries. This means that the rich countries in the north of the world will help the poorest countries in the south.

This is a historical acknowledgment that the basis and origin of the problem related to emissions, which began with the era of the industrial revolution in the countries of Europe and America, is the basis, and therefore they are the ones who have to bear the consequences resulting from the use of fossil fuels, and therefore the affected countries, especially developing countries, are the ones who will be continuously given compensation to be able to confront climate change. and what results from it.

This includes funds to help respond to disasters in the form of a program to detect extreme weather events, including storms, droughts, and floods exacerbated by climate disruptions declared by the United Nations.

What was not agreed upon?

Simply put, that fund will not serve everyone, only those who meet the criteria for the first proposal for the idea of the fund, which was launched by developing countries in 1992 during the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the announcement of the new standards was postponed until the COP28 summit in Abu Dhabi.

Last year’s main results were constantly attacked by some countries. The commitments were canceled at the behest of underdeveloped countries and fossil fuel producers.

Also, the participants did not reach an agreement on reducing emissions by 2025, phasing out coal and phasing out all fossil fuels until the only light point of the energy-related pledges came into effect timidly and renewable energy was identified as the way to address the energy crisis.

Perhaps the most prominent optimist linked the US-Chinese meeting and considered it a moment of success, however, from an environmental and climatic point of view, we realize that as two countries, they are the most harmful to the earth because of the emissions that each of them causes, in addition to the intense competition for control of the markets, which prompted each of them to raise the pace of production. at the expense of everything else.

There is no current formula yet for estimating losses and damages from climate change. The financial assessment should include assessments of income losses and capital losses which are the key point in assessing who will pay and how much, and assessments should be based on the inclusive wealth approach as designed by UNEP.

And one needs to take into account the value of the ecosystem services that natural capital provides here. The literature on the valuation of ecosystem services is littered with both developing and underdeveloped areas and needs to be addressed urgently. But who will rule in the event of a dispute? This in itself is the biggest challenge.

To arrive at the overall wealth estimate, here one needs to estimate the loss as the difference between the comprehensive wealth values in the base period and the current period when climate-related events have already caused losses and damages. And one must realize that the resulting loss is not just a difference between two points in a spreadsheet, but it is a set of successive effects over some time, so the estimate of losses means more than the calculation of profit and loss, it is an account of future opportunities for recovery from this loss and the possibility of its compensation.

All of the above led us to realize the true measure or criterion for evaluation, and therefore adaptation to losses can only be in two cases, either reform, which is a matter of enormous cost, or compensation for losses, which is what the countries that met in Sharm el-Sheikh reached.

It should be noted that the compensation will not be a single payment, but payments, installments, and scheduling, as if those countries that caused the ruin are continuing to fight reform, even at its simplest level.

However, there is hope for change that all countries will strive for at the next summit, including those who will attend an agenda whose goal is profit, some whose goal is human, and whose goal is an abdication of responsibility.

By: Hanin Abu Alrub

Head of Media Department – National Center for Environmental Justice