Search

Don’t applaud the climate summit’s loss and damage fund deal just yet

We are an online community created around a smart and easy to access information hub which is focused on providing proven global and local insights about sustainability

11 Dec, 2023

This post was originally published on Sustainability Times

Source: Sustainability Times

Photo: Pixabay/stuarthampton

Shortly after the opening ceremony of the 2023 United Nations climate negotiations in Dubai, delegates of nations around the world rose in a standing ovation to celebrate a long-awaited agreement to launch a loss and damage fund to help vulnerable countries recover from climate-related disasters.

But the applause might not yet be warranted. The deal itself leaves much undecided and has been met with criticism by climate justice advocates and front-line communities.

I teach global environmental politics and climate justice and have been attending and observing these negotiations for over a decade to follow the demands for just climate solutions, including loss and damage compensation for countries that have done the least to cause climate change.

A brief history of loss and damage

Breakthrough” was the term often used to describe the decision at 2022’s COP27 climate conference to finally construct a loss and damage fund. Many countries rejoiced at this “long-delayed” agreement — it came 31 years after Vanuatu, a small archipelago in the Pacific, first proposed compensation for loss and damage for climate-caused sea level rise in earlier negotiations.

The agreement was only a framework, however. Most of the details were left to a transitional committee that met throughout 2023 to forward recommendations on this new fund to COP28. A United Nations report outlined at the committee’s second meeting found that funding from wealthy nations to help poorer countries adapt to the ravages of climate change grew by 65% from 2019 to 2020, to $US49 billion. That’s still far below the $160 billion to $340 billion the U.N. estimates will be needed annually by 2030.

As the meetings went on, developing nations, long wary of traditional financial institutions’ use of interest-bearing loans, which have left many low-income countries mired in debt, proposed that the fund be independent. Developed nations, however, insisted the fund be hosted under the World Bank and held up the recommendations until right before COP28.

Devil is in the details

While any deal on funding for climate disaster damages was sure to be portrayed as a historic win, further investigation suggests that it should be welcomed with hesitation and scrutiny.

First, the fund contains no specifics on scale, financial targets or how it will be funded. Instead, the decision merely “invites” developed nations to “take the lead” in providing finance and support and encourages commitments from other parties.

It also fails to detail which countries will be eligible to receive funding and vaguely states it would be for “economic and non-economic loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events.”

So far, pledges have been underwhelming.

Calculations of early commitments total just over US$650 million, with Germany and the United Arab Emirates pledging $100 million and the U.K. committing $75 million. The United States, one of the largest climate change contributors, pledged only $17.5 million in comparison. It’s a shockingly low starting point.

Also, any notion that this fund represents liability or compensation by developed countries — a major concern for countries with long histories of carbon pollution — was removed entirely. It in fact notes that loss and damage response is based on cooperation instead.

In a rare win for the developing world, funds were made available — even at subnational and community levels — to all nations, though with yet-undetermined performance indicators.

Photo: Pixabay/ELG21

Additional concern has been raised about the fund’s interim host – the World Bank. In fact, deciding on a host institution was one of the sticking points that nearly derailed earlier talks.

On one side, the United States and other developed nations insisted the fund be hosted by the World Bank, which has always been led by an American and has historically spread pro-Western policies. Developing countries, however, resisted the World Bank’s involvement based on their historical experiences with its lending and structural adjustment programs and noting the bank’s role for years in financing oil and gas exploration as cornerstones of development efforts.

Following a stalemate and U.S. attempts to block a consensus, a compromise was reached to host the fund under the World Bank for four years, with guardrails to ensure its independence and impact. After this window, the host structure will be reviewed, leading to either a fully independent fund or continuation under the World Bank.

The concern for critics with this route is that the compromise risks ending up as a permanent hosting situation.

And there are more issues, such as the fund board’s composition, which only allows for national representatives, not civil society representatives such as from Indigenous groups, as developing countries requested. The scope of funding that will be allowed is also still up in the air.

In the fund’s vague state, it opens the door for countries, as part of their loss and damage funding commitments, to count private loans, conditional import credits and even funding from the fossil fuel industry at the same time the industry continues to fuel climate damage.

What happens next, starting in 2024

To date, the international climate community does not have a solid track record when it comes to climate finance promises. Each successive fund — from the Green Climate Fund that supports green projects in the developing world to the Adaptation Fund that builds climate resilience for the most vulnerable nations — has been woefully undersourced from inception.

In 2021, the entire climate finance ecosystem, from national commitments to private investment, totaled $850 billion. Experts indicate that this sum needs to be closer to $4.3 trillion.

That target represents 20% year-over-year growth until the end of this decade – a significant ramp up from recent years.

From 2011 to 2020, total climate finance grew at just 7% annually. If this trend continues, not only will developing and most vulnerable countries lose faith in this process, but the very need for loss and damage funding will only grow.

The new fund board is mandated to hold its first meeting by Jan. 31, 2024. While this early start time is laudable, droughts will continue killing crops, and storms will continue flooding homes while the new fund engages in another series of meetings to determine who will qualify, how they can apply and how and when funds will actually be dispersed.

This article was written by Shannon Gibson, associate professor of International Relations and Environmental Studies at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. It is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post Don’t applaud the climate summit’s loss and damage fund deal just yet appeared first on Sustainability Times.

Pass over the stars to rate this post. Your opinion is always welcome.
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

You may also like…

‘The Science Is What Sets Us Apart’: How the Rodale Institute Has Spent 77 Years Innovating Regenerative Organic Agriculture

‘The Science Is What Sets Us Apart’: How the Rodale Institute Has Spent 77 Years Innovating Regenerative Organic Agriculture

Founded in 1947 by J.I. Rodale, Rodale Institute is a nonprofit dedicated to helping the regenerative organic agriculture movement grow through research, education and farmer training. In his study of regenerative organic farming, Rodale — who came up with the term “organic” — studied Indigenous agricultural practices, including those of communities like the long-lived Hunza […]
The post ‘The Science Is What Sets Us Apart’: How the Rodale Institute Has Spent 77 Years Innovating Regenerative Organic Agriculture appeared first on EcoWatch.

Urban 'placemaking' focus for $85m recreation centre

Urban 'placemaking' focus for $85m recreation centre

Sydney developer Billbergia Group has announced the Rhodes Recreation Centre — an $85 million, 9200 m2 multi-purpose community hub in Sydney’s Inner West.

Located at 6 Gauthorpe St and designed by architectural firm SJB, the recreation centre is in a three-level podium building beneath two high-rise residential towers — the 48-level Peake and 43-level Oasis. Together, they form stage two of the developer’s Rhodes Central Masterplan — a $3 billion, three-stage town centre project.

The Rhodes Recreation Centre was delivered under a $97 million Voluntary Planning Agreement (VPA) between the developer and City of Canada Bay Council. It will be handed over to council next month and is set to open later this year. Once complete, the masterplan will have delivered 25,000 m2 of dedicated public amenity, including retail, community facilities and open space.

With the NSW Government’s housing reforms set to address the housing shortage, the recreation centre will reflect the importance of ‘placemaking’ — a collaborative approach to designing and managing public spaces that enhances community wellbeing and fosters connections between people and their environment — in planning new urban communities.

It also presents a pathway for public and private sectors to collaborate and create social infrastructure while increasing housing supply in fast-growing suburbs.

The recreation centre is set to add vibrancy and pedestrian activity to the local streetscape, providing a diverse range of facilities that enhance the livability of the evolving suburb. These community amenities include two full-sized indoor sports courts, a gymnastics centre, a 70-place childcare centre, a community lounge, allied health services, and bookable spaces for local groups and events. It also provides a gym with cardio equipment, weights, group fitness rooms, a creche and an outdoor terrace, alongside a range of sustainability features.

Facilities at the Rhodes Recreation Centre. Images supplied.

“Rhodes Recreation Centre is the community heart of our high-density TOD development, bringing to life Billbergia’s vision for a future-focused, livable urban environment that prioritises amenity, not just density,” said Saul Moran, Development Director – Planning and Design at Billbergia.

The amenities within the two residential towers include a swimming pool, spa, sauna, children’s play area, library and theatre rooms. Pedestrian connections and through-site links provide access to Rhodes railway station and the Homebush Bay waterfront.

“The Rhodes Recreation Centre stands as a benchmark in successful public–private collaboration. Through a VPA with Canada Bay Council, we’ve created a pathway to unlock additional housing supply while delivering significant, lasting community infrastructure. It’s a clear demonstration of how thoughtful public and private partnerships can shape vibrant, livable neighbourhoods,” Moran said.

Located adjacent to Rhodes railway station, stage one of Billbergia’s Rhodes Central Masterplan was completed in 2021 and included the 13,000 m2 Rhodes Central Shopping Centre, with convenience retail, a Woolworths supermarket, medical facilities and the Bamboo Lane dining precinct.

Other previous projects include the 1.2 ha Phoenix Park in Rhodes, the $63 million Bennelong Bridge, the popular Baylink Shuttle service, the 3500 m2 Wentworth Point Community Centre and Library, and the Wentworth Point Pop-Up Town Square.

Billbergia’s ongoing focus on placemaking and social infrastructure also includes the $8.4 million delivery of a library at its mixed-tenure development, Arncliffe Central, in Sydney’s south. There is the potential for 75% of Arncliffe Central’s dwellings to be dedicated to social, affordable and essential worker rental housing, along with 3400 m2 allocated to childcare, convenience retail and cafes, and a 4000 m2 park with play space for both residents and the broader community.

Top image caption: The Rhodes Recreation Centre location with two planned residential towers, Peake and Oasis. Image supplied.

0 Comments