Post by Admin on Nov 30, 2014 8:28:17 GMT -5
Result of Loss and Damage Working Group
■ Form
One clear sentence (+comments explaining)
Start with the most urgent topics
■ Topics
1. The issue of L&D should be addressed with urgency.
2. L&D and Adaptation should be treated separately.
How should L&D and Adaptation be separated?
There are limits of adaptation. = acknowledgement (IPCC)
3. Common and differentiated responsibility should be applied.
Causation and responsibility are unclear
4. We should anticipate funding for future extreme events according to scientific estimations instead of waiting for them to happen.
Review the funding scheme every x year(s)
Sponsoring countries contribute to an insurance fund in advance.
Encourage multiple regional schemes in regions with high and/or moderate risks.
An insurance fund would monitor whether countries take appropriate actions to anticipate and take prevention measures for disaster risk reduction.
5. The minimum definition of L&D is that which is beyond repair.
<Meeting Notes>
-Date: 29 November, 2014
-Participants: Leslie, Eirin, Mark, Silv, Elisa, Caroline, Jessica, Anna, Elena, Seajin, Johannes, Clara
-Written by: Seajin Kim
Introduction
- Eirin: We should make general and important points
- Mark: Australia. I have done 6 months of research in Loss and Damage. I have a background in science. The research paper has been published in September.
- Silv: Italy. I have not been working in loss and damage. I study risk prevention/reduction
- Elisa: I am a researcher working on loss and damage. I began my thesis on initial mechanism 6 months ago in USA. One big issue in Loss and damage is monetary fund. Countries do not take out money from their pockets. The concept of ‘compensation’ is not clear and vague. Also, the limits of Adaptation are not defined.
- Caroline: USA, I’m in Sierra. I follow policy tracks and loss and damage..
- Jessica: USA. I’m also in Sierra. I do environmental studies, policy, environment, and loss and damage in justice perspective. I’ve been in conference before focusing on gender.
- Anna: I do research and I’m a student. It is my first time in Loss and damage.
- Elena: Ukraine. I’m a lawyer. Ecology is interesting for me.
- Seajin: I’m a student in climate change and French literature. I’m in GEYK. Loss and Damage is a new topic for me
- Johannes: I am in engineering master’s program. I don’t know much about loss and damage. I’m based in Science, especially I’m interested in physical behaviors, philosophic discussion, and ethical discussion.
- Leslie: France. I studied French Literature and political science in sustainable development. I don’t know in details.
Discussion
- Mark: There are data and knowledge paper on liability by UNFCCC. International banks contribute a lot to predict loss and damage to ensure future. Also, there is uncertainty around. For example, US, China, and Japan have not enough clarity.
- Leslie: L&D is very vague. Climate change is not even precise.
- Mark: In Warsaw, Loss and Damage was not mentioned, and identified migration is considered as secondary issue of L&D. primary is civic.
- Caroline: It’s not secondary. It is included in the paper.
- Johannes: International law is different from talking about refugees, because refugee protection is complimentary.
- Eirin: These have to be concrete and we should discuss general ideas like what we want to talk in COP. to consider. We should push them to have a justice perspective. Rich countries should be working on solutions and get the developing countries to be helped.
- Johannes: I wonder if there are some perspectives already talked in COP. What are the discussions going on in COP? What are the things that should be filled in?
- Mark: There are seven main purposes of mechanisms. Countries started to put in submissions for development in next 2 years.
- Elisa: They don’t want L&D in the topic. 2016, we will see whether to keep it ready. They are not going to have a common vision in the negotiation.
- Eirin: Prioritization should be addressed like whether L&D is a part of Adaptation to avoid problems. It’s not about securing areas or preparing for things that might happen. This is helping out people. There are different things from Adaptation but not enough prioritization is given. There is responsibility and the fund should be given.
- Leslie: In the morning training session, there was a scientist who did the training. According to the sources, some of the countries are disappearing. It could be part of our main points. Loss and Damage is not considered in many countries. Countries are emitting too much CO2. Therefore, it’s too late for 1.5°C. It should be clearly set. L&D is too big to be in Adaptation.
- Johannes: It’s a discussion of responsibility for damage. Developed countries are scared about giving money out to the things that are already happened or discussing the future.
- Jessica: Responsibility and youth are already taken considered in L&D. Not only giving out money, but also giving out technology and capacity in L&D should be considered.
- Eirin: It is a justice part. Some of the countries are more responsible and have sources to manage this point.
- Elisa: The problem is that they put too many problems into L&D. It is difficult to find solutions.
- Johannes: We have to make list of problems for L&D. There are both clear problems and unclear problems. Therefore, we need to distinguish which are clear and which are unclear. Also, we have to make strategies.
- Caroline: They have already distinguished topics like slow onset and extreme weather. L&D and adaptation both have topics.
- Eirin: We need to talk which will be discussed in L&D, which are controversial.
- Mark: One of the main issues is that the mechanism will be looked over in 2 years. We have to establish something concrete and functional and find main points. Should potential risks should be dealt with the country itself or invested by other countries? If they are constantly happening problems, they have certainty, so it should be invested by other countries including technology transfer.
- Johannes: technology transfer is a part of L&D, not Adaptation.
- Eirin: We have to have policies and get information from organizations. And do they have representatives from each organization?
- Jessica: We have policies in CBDR and justice. But we don’t have representatives.
- Leslie: I don’t have policies from our organization. We have to decide what can be repaired or not or what is not recoverable. If we are to consider what is repairable, the minimum of the limit of L&D should be defined.
- Mark: We should talk about common and differentiated responsibility, urgency and impact of climate change right now.
- Leslie: She should recap the points that should be included in the list and make a first draft.
- Elisa: We have to start from Warsaw. If you are arguing the mechanism, the main points will be resources on mechanism. We should be precise.
- Mark: Should it be specific or strategic. What is the general feeling of L&D? We should discuss what is urgent. Also, L&D should be separate from adaption?
- Eirin: Even though we are rich countries, we do not have to make limits what is possible or not.
- Acknowledge that the issue is complex <or> Youths should be radical
- Mark: Nobody will pay for the fund. It is not possible to pay before the disaster. Recent new data says that the impact of disaster, so it can be analyzed and make it flexible.
- Elisa: Should they give money before something happen or after? There is a parameter which can be activated if there is a disaster. Even outside of the convention, we have to get more support and make contribution.
- Mark: In Austalia, political architecture is already being shared and has a risk pooling system. We can make more international structure. We have to encourage developed countries to contribute. - Eirin: Because we don’t know enough, we should put it on the forum and discuss more.
■ Form
One clear sentence (+comments explaining)
Start with the most urgent topics
■ Topics
1. The issue of L&D should be addressed with urgency.
2. L&D and Adaptation should be treated separately.
How should L&D and Adaptation be separated?
There are limits of adaptation. = acknowledgement (IPCC)
3. Common and differentiated responsibility should be applied.
Causation and responsibility are unclear
4. We should anticipate funding for future extreme events according to scientific estimations instead of waiting for them to happen.
Review the funding scheme every x year(s)
Sponsoring countries contribute to an insurance fund in advance.
Encourage multiple regional schemes in regions with high and/or moderate risks.
An insurance fund would monitor whether countries take appropriate actions to anticipate and take prevention measures for disaster risk reduction.
5. The minimum definition of L&D is that which is beyond repair.
<Meeting Notes>
-Date: 29 November, 2014
-Participants: Leslie, Eirin, Mark, Silv, Elisa, Caroline, Jessica, Anna, Elena, Seajin, Johannes, Clara
-Written by: Seajin Kim
Introduction
- Eirin: We should make general and important points
- Mark: Australia. I have done 6 months of research in Loss and Damage. I have a background in science. The research paper has been published in September.
- Silv: Italy. I have not been working in loss and damage. I study risk prevention/reduction
- Elisa: I am a researcher working on loss and damage. I began my thesis on initial mechanism 6 months ago in USA. One big issue in Loss and damage is monetary fund. Countries do not take out money from their pockets. The concept of ‘compensation’ is not clear and vague. Also, the limits of Adaptation are not defined.
- Caroline: USA, I’m in Sierra. I follow policy tracks and loss and damage..
- Jessica: USA. I’m also in Sierra. I do environmental studies, policy, environment, and loss and damage in justice perspective. I’ve been in conference before focusing on gender.
- Anna: I do research and I’m a student. It is my first time in Loss and damage.
- Elena: Ukraine. I’m a lawyer. Ecology is interesting for me.
- Seajin: I’m a student in climate change and French literature. I’m in GEYK. Loss and Damage is a new topic for me
- Johannes: I am in engineering master’s program. I don’t know much about loss and damage. I’m based in Science, especially I’m interested in physical behaviors, philosophic discussion, and ethical discussion.
- Leslie: France. I studied French Literature and political science in sustainable development. I don’t know in details.
Discussion
- Mark: There are data and knowledge paper on liability by UNFCCC. International banks contribute a lot to predict loss and damage to ensure future. Also, there is uncertainty around. For example, US, China, and Japan have not enough clarity.
- Leslie: L&D is very vague. Climate change is not even precise.
- Mark: In Warsaw, Loss and Damage was not mentioned, and identified migration is considered as secondary issue of L&D. primary is civic.
- Caroline: It’s not secondary. It is included in the paper.
- Johannes: International law is different from talking about refugees, because refugee protection is complimentary.
- Eirin: These have to be concrete and we should discuss general ideas like what we want to talk in COP. to consider. We should push them to have a justice perspective. Rich countries should be working on solutions and get the developing countries to be helped.
- Johannes: I wonder if there are some perspectives already talked in COP. What are the discussions going on in COP? What are the things that should be filled in?
- Mark: There are seven main purposes of mechanisms. Countries started to put in submissions for development in next 2 years.
- Elisa: They don’t want L&D in the topic. 2016, we will see whether to keep it ready. They are not going to have a common vision in the negotiation.
- Eirin: Prioritization should be addressed like whether L&D is a part of Adaptation to avoid problems. It’s not about securing areas or preparing for things that might happen. This is helping out people. There are different things from Adaptation but not enough prioritization is given. There is responsibility and the fund should be given.
- Leslie: In the morning training session, there was a scientist who did the training. According to the sources, some of the countries are disappearing. It could be part of our main points. Loss and Damage is not considered in many countries. Countries are emitting too much CO2. Therefore, it’s too late for 1.5°C. It should be clearly set. L&D is too big to be in Adaptation.
- Johannes: It’s a discussion of responsibility for damage. Developed countries are scared about giving money out to the things that are already happened or discussing the future.
- Jessica: Responsibility and youth are already taken considered in L&D. Not only giving out money, but also giving out technology and capacity in L&D should be considered.
- Eirin: It is a justice part. Some of the countries are more responsible and have sources to manage this point.
- Elisa: The problem is that they put too many problems into L&D. It is difficult to find solutions.
- Johannes: We have to make list of problems for L&D. There are both clear problems and unclear problems. Therefore, we need to distinguish which are clear and which are unclear. Also, we have to make strategies.
- Caroline: They have already distinguished topics like slow onset and extreme weather. L&D and adaptation both have topics.
- Eirin: We need to talk which will be discussed in L&D, which are controversial.
- Mark: One of the main issues is that the mechanism will be looked over in 2 years. We have to establish something concrete and functional and find main points. Should potential risks should be dealt with the country itself or invested by other countries? If they are constantly happening problems, they have certainty, so it should be invested by other countries including technology transfer.
- Johannes: technology transfer is a part of L&D, not Adaptation.
- Eirin: We have to have policies and get information from organizations. And do they have representatives from each organization?
- Jessica: We have policies in CBDR and justice. But we don’t have representatives.
- Leslie: I don’t have policies from our organization. We have to decide what can be repaired or not or what is not recoverable. If we are to consider what is repairable, the minimum of the limit of L&D should be defined.
- Mark: We should talk about common and differentiated responsibility, urgency and impact of climate change right now.
- Leslie: She should recap the points that should be included in the list and make a first draft.
- Elisa: We have to start from Warsaw. If you are arguing the mechanism, the main points will be resources on mechanism. We should be precise.
- Mark: Should it be specific or strategic. What is the general feeling of L&D? We should discuss what is urgent. Also, L&D should be separate from adaption?
- Eirin: Even though we are rich countries, we do not have to make limits what is possible or not.
- Acknowledge that the issue is complex <or> Youths should be radical
- Mark: Nobody will pay for the fund. It is not possible to pay before the disaster. Recent new data says that the impact of disaster, so it can be analyzed and make it flexible.
- Elisa: Should they give money before something happen or after? There is a parameter which can be activated if there is a disaster. Even outside of the convention, we have to get more support and make contribution.
- Mark: In Austalia, political architecture is already being shared and has a risk pooling system. We can make more international structure. We have to encourage developed countries to contribute. - Eirin: Because we don’t know enough, we should put it on the forum and discuss more.