TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Mar22/02)
4 March 2022
Third World Network

IPCC: Controversy over “losses and damages” and solar radiation modification.

Kathmandu, 4 Mar (Prerna Bomzan): The line-by-line approval of the recently released Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report ‘Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’, involved some key contentious issues resulting in long-drawn discussions between developing and developed country governments as well as authors of the report to reach consensus over the intense two-week period from 14-27 Feb.

The 35-pager SPM provides a high-level summary of the key findings of the comprehensive full assessment report comprising 18 Chapters and 7 Cross-Chapter Papers.

Two of the key contentious issues which required separate ‘huddles’ to make progress revolved around the use of the term “losses and damages” and new risks arising from responses to climate change such as solar radiation modification (SRM).

The United States (US) in particular was opposed to use of the term “losses and damages” in the SPM, and made efforts to remove the term, but it did not succeed, due to opposition from developing countries. (See further details below).

It was clear that through its persistent arguments, the US wanted to delink “losses and damages” from the political discussion under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement.

(In Glasgow at the UNFCCC’s COP 26 last year, discussions on loss and damage were particularly contentious, with developing countries pushing for a facility to ensure a process for loss and damage finance, while developed countries, especially the US, were firmly opposed to this. The final compromise was just to have a dialogue, “to discuss the arrangements for the funding of activities to avert, minimize and address loss and damage associated with the adverse impacts of climate change”, which will begin in June this year, in Bonn, Germany).

In relation to SRM, the US found the SPM “skewed” against its use, and called for “balance” in the text, while many developed and developing countries expressed concerns over the downplaying of its risks.

The fight over “Losses and Damages”

The wrangling started with the first plenary under the section on observed impacts from climate change, in relation to the sentence: “Losses and damages on natural and human systems have increased due to anthropogenic intensification of tropical cyclones, sea level rise and heavy precipitation (high confidence)”.

The US registered its opposition to the use of the term “losses and damages”, arguing that “impacts” instead is a more appropriate term and hence, wanted the latter term to be used consistently throughout the text. India and Ecuador in an immediate response, countered that “losses and damages” are not the same as “impacts” and called for the term to be retained.

In subsequent discussions on the sentence in the contact group, France also expressed its preference for “impacts” which was immediately backed by the US and Estonia.  However, Ecuador and India again maintained that “losses and damages” is a fact and which was also referred to in the underlying assessment report.

The US then made clear that its main concern was the “political process under the Paris Agreement” where “loss and damage” is under discussion and hence, the usage of “losses and damages” would imply “misinterpretation” and “misunderstanding” in the broader community.

In response, Saint Kitts & Nevis expressed that it definitely sees similarities between the two and further suggested an additional sentence from the technical summary of the assessment report viz. “Severe loss and damage to human and natural systems are being driven by human induced climate changes increasing the frequency and/or intensity and/or duration of extreme weather events (high confidence)”. This was also supported by Saint Lucia.

The US was not reassured when the authors clarified that in the report, the terminology in the political context under the UNFCCC has been referred to as “Loss and Damage” in upper case, while they preferred to stick to “losses and damages” in this case, (referring to the sentence) which is in line with the underlying assessment. The US countered that even at the UNFCCC, the term “Loss and Damage” as used by the authors is used in lower case.

In agreement with the US, the Netherlands then suggested to use “damages and losses” instead in the sentence.

Following such a suggestion, there was an attempt to reframe the sentence as: “Impacts, including damages and losses, due to tropical cyclones have increased due to sea level rise and the increase in heavy precipitation (medium confidence)”.

This was supported by France, Belgium, the European Union (EU), Russia, but was firmly objected to by India, Saint Kitts & Nevis and ultimately, with no consensus, it was decided that the sentence in its original form should be taken back to plenary to get direction from the Co-Chairs of the process on the way forward.

At the plenary the following day, India, Saint Lucia, Trinidad and Tobago, as well as Egypt argued in favour of keeping the original sentence while the US and France maintained their opposition. The IPCC Co-Chair Dr. Debra Roberts (who is from South Africa) decided to proceed with a huddle to make progress on the matter, which was facilitated by IPCC Bureau Member, Dr. Joy Pereira (who is from Malaysia).

At the huddle, the following sentence was agreed to with the insertion of a footnote on losses and damages: “Adverse impacts from tropical cyclones, with related losses and damages [footnote 19], have increased due to sea level rise and the increase in heavy precipitation (medium confidence)”. (Footnote 19 in the SPM, refers to “losses and damages”, as: “adverse observed impacts and/or projected risks and can be economic and/or non-economic).

The much diluted sentence in comparison to the original sentence, was agreed in plenary.

The compromised language “adverse impacts” and “related losses and damages” was also reproduced in the headline statement of observed impacts from climate change (SPM.B.1), at a huddle facilitated by IPCC Bureau Member Ko Barrett (who is from the US).

It was advanced by Germany and supported by the US, Ireland, France, Norway, Finland, United Kingdom and Spain. In response, Ecuador said that based on evidence of losses and damages, it was difficult to accept “impacts” and attempted to change the word “related” to “resulting in” for some damage control, but this was in vain.

The final adopted text of SPM.B.1 reads as follows: “Human-induced climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme events, has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people, beyond natural climate variability…”

Besides the aforementioned key fights as well as disagreements elsewhere, in the rest of the SPM text, the “losses and damages” terminology has been duly preserved due to resistance from developing countries at efforts to undermine them by developed countries.

The fight over Solar Radiation Modification

There was a clear divide between the US and the rest of the developed countries as well as developing countries over the issue of solar radiation modification (SRM) approaches as a response to climate change under the section on “Complex, Compound and Cascading Risks” in the SPM.

SRM was originally included as part of the single paragraph on mitigation and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) options. It read as follows:

“New risks arise from responses to climate change, including maladaptation, adverse side effects of some mitigation and carbon dioxide removal options, and risks from solar radiation modification (high confidence)……Solar radiation modification approaches, if they were to be pursued, would not stop CO2 from increasing in the atmosphere and ocean (high confidence) and their potential to reduce climate risks or introduce novel risks to people and ecosystems remains poorly understood {line of sight}”.

The US pointed out that the paragraph was entirely skewed against SRM; it lacked “balance”; was about “mitigation” and was therefore outside the scope of Working Group II (which is on “impacts, adaptation and vulnerability”) and called for the paragraph to be dropped altogether.

However, Canada, France, New Zealand, Germany, Sweden, UK, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands, and Luxembourg, all supported to keep the paragraph since it was highly “policy relevant” in the context of “risks” and further suggested to separate SRM and CDR into two paragraphs to avoid “lock-in” of SRM, which is still an emerging issue. Sweden, Norway, Switzerland argued that the focus is on “risks” and hence, within the scope and mandate.

Among the developing countries, Saint Lucia and Grenada pushed for separation of SRM and CDR; Tanzania and India suggested improving the formulation of the language with Saudi Arabia for dropping the paragraph; while Brazil and Argentina said that the current formulation was too mitigation centric, with the latter also adding that CDR should be replaced by greenhouse gas removals.

Following comments from governments and as requested by a majority of them, the authors proposed two separate textual paragraphs on CDR and SRM, respectively.

(It is to be noted that in relation to CDR too, an issue arose about whether mitigation is inclusive of CDR, resulting in another divide between developed countries. The new textual paragraph on CDR proposed by the authors accommodated concerns of those who were in favour and reads as follows: “…..of some mitigation options, including carbon dioxide removal options”, while the original text separated the two).

Given the complexity of both respective textual paragraphs on SRM and CDR, Co-Chair Debra Roberts suggested a huddle which was facilitated by IPCC Vice Chair Dr. Youba Sokona (from Mali).

(The paragraph on CDR was agreed during the first half of the three-hour huddle, with the issue about whether mitigation is inclusive of CDR being resolved by the authors who suggested a revised language formulation in consultation with and approval by Working Group III (focusing on “Mitigation of Climate Change”), and read as follows: “…..emission reduction and carbon dioxide removal options”).

The second half of the huddle was then dedicated to the separate textual paragraph on SRM which read as: “Solar radiation modification approaches, if they were to be pursued, would not stop CO2 from increasing in the atmosphere or reduce resulting ocean acidification (high confidence), and their potential to reduce climate change risks or introduce novel risks to people and ecosystems remains poorly understood”.

Saint Kitts & Nevis expressed caution about risks and suggested to split the two risks in the latter half of the sentence. It proposed text from the underlying assessment report as follows: “…..,and introduce novel risks to people and ecosystems, including from rapid warming for a sudden and sustained termination of SRM (confidence statement). The potential of solar radiation modification approaches to reduce climate risks remains poorly understood (high confidence)”.

Sweden said that research on SRM has been going on since quite a long time from around 2006 and it is “difficult to find an SRM technique preferable, be it small scale or large scale”.  It also flagged concerns about its governance challenges.

France suggested to include text from the technical summary which read as follows: “large negative impacts are projected from rapid warming for a sudden and sustained termination of SRM in a high-CO2 scenario”.

Norway suggested to insertion of “large uncertainties and knowledge gaps” from the IPCC 1.5C report, while Germany also supported Saint Kitts & Nevis on splitting the two risks mentioned in the textual paragraph.

While those who intervened were concerned about the downplaying of SRM risks by the proposed textual paragraph, the US was comfortable with it expressing that “we are in a theoretical space” and the text captures that level as well as it “does not prejudice anybody’s views”.

At one point, the IPCC Vice Chair Ko Barrett also intervened, saying that statements being made are “biased” tilting “more towards hazards” as opposed to dealing with the issue in an “evenhanded way”. Germany, in response, raised a point of order stopping the intervention, stating clearly that the role of the Vice Chair is “not to intervene and not to negotiate”.

As the discussion dragged with the majority of the developed countries trying to ensure the right framing of SRM risks in line with the underlying assessment report, the US was persistent with its position of so-called “balancing” the risks.

This direction of the discussion which was heading towards reaching compromise on the risks of SRM just to accommodate the US, triggered Norway, the United Kingdom, Saint Kitts & Nevis to suggest dropping the SRM paragraph altogether. However, France responded clearly saying that “deletion is not an option”, since the assessment results are “very important”, providing “unique opportunity to address the potential impacts of SRM”.

The long-drawn discussion eventually eluded consensus and Vice Chair Sokona as the facilitator decided to take the unresolved paragraph back to the plenary.

At the new plenary, authors proposed a new textual paragraph based on the huddle discussion and in line with the underlying assessment report which read as follows: “Solar radiation modification approaches intended to partly reduce some risks of global warming, if they were to be implemented, would not stop atmospheric CO2 concentrations from increasing or reduce resulting ocean acidification under continued anthropogenic emissions (high confidence). Large uncertainties and knowledge gaps are associated with the potential of SRM approaches to reduce climate change risks, and with their potential to introduce novel risks to people and ecosystems. The more intense the SRM deployment, the larger is the likelihood of the risks of side effects and environment risks, including for most SRM approaches, a sudden and sustained termination of SRM in an intermediate or high CO2 scenario causing rapid warming and abrupt changes in the water cycle that would pose substantial risks (high confidence){line of sight}”.

Another huddle was mandated by Co-Chair Dr. Hans Otto Portner (from Germany) to Vice Chair Sokona to facilitate consensus on the proposed textual paragraph.

Germany, the UK, Norway, France, Trinidad and Tobago, and Saint Kitts & Nevis expressed concerns about the wording around risks being “too weak” and that the paragraph suggests that “SRM will not be a risk”.  

The US on the other hand maintained its position about getting the so-called “balance” right and stressed on highlighting the ability of the SRM to reduce climate hazards. With the designated three-hour huddle near past exhaustion, the authors came up with the following sentence formulation to accommodate the US, taking language from the technical summary of the assessment report: “Solar radiation modification approaches have the potential to offset warming and ameliorate some climate hazards, but substantial residual climate change or over compensating change would occur at regional scales and seasonal timescales (high confidence)”.

There was consensus to delete the last sentence referring to SRM deployment from the new textual paragraph in order to keep the paragraph shorter, as well as there was agreement that a lot of information was already in the agreed paragraph which finally read as follows:

“Solar radiation modification approaches, if they were to be implemented, introduce a widespread range of new risks to people and ecosystems, which are not well understood (high confidence). Solar radiation modification approaches have the potential to offset warming and ameliorate some climate hazards, but substantial residual climate change or over compensating change would occur at regional scales and seasonal timescales (high confidence). Large uncertainties and knowledge gaps are associated with the potential of solar radiation modification approaches to reduce climate change risks. Solar radiation modification would not stop atmospheric CO2 concentrations from increasing or reduce resulting ocean acidification under continued anthropogenic emissions (high confidence)”.