A group of polar bears in orange life jackets stand helplessly huddled on an ice floe. The penguin next door has even more bad luck and hangs with his head in a noose. Together they form a work of art in the pavilion of the island state of Tuvalu. Their stand must be one of the most photographed spots at the Glasgow Climate Summit, as hardly anyone walks by without pulling out their phone.
Tuvalu Finance Minister Seve Paeniu likes to reiterate the analogy with his own country: “Those polar bears suffer from climate change while they have contributed nothing to it. Like us.” Tuvalu, a group of islands in the Pacific Ocean, is about six feet above sea level, and the ocean is slowly eating their land, Paeniu says. “We are increasingly faced with violent storms that sweep away our coast.” One of his fellow ministers gave a video speech with the seawater up to his knees as a statement.
Worldwide, several dozen small island states – in addition to Tuvalu include Fiji, the Seychelles, Barbados, Mauritius, the Maldives – are on the frontline of climate change. Rising sea levels, more frequent floods and greater droughts hit them first. They therefore have a special role at international climate summits such as now in Glasgow, Scotland. These kinds of meetings are the moment for them to ask for attention and to arrange help.
The fragile island states function as “the moral conscience” of climate summits, says Angelique Pouponneau. She lives in the Seychelles and is in charge of a non-governmental organization that promotes sustainable projects in the sea. And she is involved with AOSIS, the Alliance of Small Island States that negotiates as one group in Glasgow: “Our members will not all survive even if global warming is limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius. It’s grim, but we’re now deciding who gets to survive and who doesn’t. The lives of islanders are apparently worth less than those of others.” For example, some Marshall Islands would disappear permanently under water if nothing happens.
I want to put the setting of the climate summit next to the real problems here in Tuvalu
Simon Kofe Minister of Foreign Affairs of Tuvalu
One of their main goals is to get extra money from developed countries for the consequences they are experiencing from climate change. The $100 billion that rich countries have pledged to poorer countries each year was the lower limit for AOSIS, says Pouponneau. “We have always said that more is needed. The point is also that we are already spending money: governments pay for the required adjustments themselves.” That amount of 100 billion per year was already agreed during the climate summit in 2009 for 2020, but will probably only be achieved in 2023.
Who pays for the damage
Specifically, the island states want additional funding for adaptation – the adjustments they have to make because of climate change – and for compensation. Loss and damage, it is called in the negotiating language of the United Nations. In practice, it comes down to the question of who pays the compensation for destroyed roads and houses, or for agricultural land where crops can no longer grow due to flooding. Do the governments of the island states pay for this or do countries that are mainly responsible for climate change with their harmful emissions of greenhouse gases?
For Minister Seve Paeniu, the answer is simple. This isn’t about traditional relief or charity, it’s about justice, he says. To climate justice. “We need better roads, stronger infrastructure in Tuvalu. And we need to reclaim land to protect our inhabitants. That costs money.” And for these kinds of small, poor countries, which are only becoming more vulnerable due to global warming, it is also more difficult to borrow money on the international markets, for example.
Two degrees Celsius warming means a death sentence for us. We don’t want that, so we came here to say try harder
Mia Amor Mottley Prime Minister of Barbados
The island states would prefer a special international flow of funds for loss and damage negotiate, for example through a separate fund. So far, that doesn’t work very well; According to Seve Paeniu, because developed countries do not want to see the adaptations to extreme weather that poor countries have to make as direct consequences of climate change and therefore not as their responsibility. “For me, the sea that washes away our country is a direct consequence of climate change. They don’t want to see that connection.”
Legal liability is indeed a very sensitive issue for rich countries, says Maarten van Aalst. He is director of the Red Cross Climate Center and follows the negotiations on adaptation and . in Glasgow loss and damage up close. “If they open that door to acknowledgment of liability, it can lead to a very high bill. So talking about compensation is for them a no go.” Also, don’t forget, he says, that those roads in Tuvalu, for example, may have been misdesigned or left unmaintained for years. It is sometimes difficult to determine what is climate damage and what is not.
The island states have had a lot of influence on the outcome of climate negotiations over the years. Through them came to the climate summit in 2013 for the first time, the option of financing damage by rich countries seriously on the table, after a devastating hurricane hit the Philippines shortly before that summit.
And at the climate agreement in Paris six years ago, thanks to them, the aim of a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius warming compared to the pre-industrial era was included in the final statement. In Paris, the importance of loss and damage in the final text. Even if it was with a big disclaimer that the agreement could never form a basis for damages and compensation claims.
Solidarity Fund
This year, the awareness of rich countries that some funding is expected of them from frontline countries is quite strong, says Maarten van Aalst. “Donor countries are different from previous years. Germany has earmarked money for adaptation, the European Commission is paying attention to it. They want something with this.” Perhaps also because report after report establishes the influence of humans on climate change. Van Aalst expects that by the end of this week the countries may end up with a kind of solidarity fund, into which rich countries deposit more than poor, vulnerable countries.
There is nothing dignified about a slow, painful death. You might as well bomb our islands instead of forcing us to experience our own demise
Surangel Whipps Junior president of Palau
The small island states are less well represented than usual in terms of numbers of negotiators this year. Due to the corona crisis and long quarantine requirements on return, not everyone was able to come to Glasgow, even though the organizer the United Kingdom had sent vaccines around the world. But collectively they certainly make their voices heard, says Van Aalst. Politics for them also depends a lot on it: “It’s not about possible damage later, their inhabitants are affected now. How can you come home with agreements that mean that the earth will warm by 2 degrees Celsius?”
In the meantime, just to be sure, the islands are already looking for other roads that can lead to justice. Minister Paeniu says that Tuvalu together with Antigua and Barbuda an initiative has started to request legal advice from the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea on countries’ responsibilities regarding greenhouse gas emissions and sea level rise. Their ultimate goal is to start a case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague: “Against the biggest emitters. Against the US, but perhaps also against China, India or Australia. In Paris we agreed that the polluter pays. If that doesn’t happen, we’ll have to enforce it some other way.”
A version of this article also appeared in NRC in the morning of November 9, 2021
#Island #states #fear #global #warming #determine #survive