TWN Info Service on Climate Change (Feb22/08)
28 February 2022
Third World Network

IPCC report warns of increased losses and damages with more global warming

Delhi , 28 Feb, (Indrajit Bose, Prerna Bomzan) – The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Working Group 2 (WG 2) on ‘Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability’ was approved by governments on 27 February, after two weeks of intense wrangling between developed, developing countries and the authors of the report. The IPCC convened the approval session of the SPM virtually from 14-27 February due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The report is IPCC WG 2’s contribution to the 6th Assessment Report (AR6), which is expected to be out in September this year. The SPM was negotiated line by line among governments and authors of the report. (The SPM is derived from the underlying technical reports which are prepared by the IPCC’s scientists).  

Among the key messages of the report was that with increasing global warming, “losses and damages will increase and additional human and natural systems will reach adaptation limits” and that “near-term actions that limit global warming to close to 1.5°C would substantially reduce projected losses and damages related to climate change in human systems and ecosystems, compared to higher warming levels, but cannot eliminate them all.”

It further states that “adverse climate impacts can reduce the availability of financial resources by incurring losses and damages and through impeding national economic growth, thereby further increasing financial constraints for adaptation, particularly for developing and least developed countries”.

The report also highlighted that “the cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health. Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all.”

The SPM also acknowledges that past and current development trends (past emissions, development and climate change) have not advanced global climate resilient development, and warned that there is a rapidly narrowing window of opportunity to enable it. It identifies “inclusive development choices that prioritise risk reduction, equity and justice…finance” among others as enablers of climate resilient development.

Several contentious issues arose during the approval session. These included references to “losses and damages” and “nature-based solutions” (NBS) and whether these terms should be included in the SPM.

Developed countries led by the United States (US) did not want reference to losses and damages, while the developing countries argued in favour of retaining the references in the SPM. Eventually, while the term “losses and damages” was retained in the SPM, it was diluted in some sections reading as “adverse impacts and related losses and damages”.

On NBS, developed countries led by France advocated for NBS as a measure to reduce climate risks to people, biodiversity and ecosystem services and to treat it on par with ecosystem-based adaptation. This was opposed by developing countries led by South Africa who argued that the term was contentious and should not be included. Following intense negotiations, NBS was included in a footnote, with adequate qualifiers.

Another key contentious issue was around finance for adaptation in the SPM. Developing countries, led by India and Brazil, brought in references on the importance of public finance for adaptation, whereas developed countries argued largely for the inclusion of private finance.

Developing countries led by India, highlighted the importance of mobilization of and access to financial resources while developed countries led by the US wanted reference to finance replaced by “investment” and aligned investment for climate resilient development.

A particularly contentious issue was on whether adaptation finance numbers which were tracked should be included in the SPM. The numbers showed very little finance was allocated (4 to 8 per cent) for adaptation, while the majority was for mitigation. Due to opposition by the developed countries, the numbers and the ranges could not be included. However, the SPM states that “the overwhelming majority of global tracked climate finance was targeted to mitigation while a small proportion was targeted to adaptation”.

Developing countries led by India also ensured the SPM was balanced with references to past emissions playing a role in constraining climate resilient development pathways, the reflection of equity and the importance of financial resources for developing countries to enable climate resilient development.

Other sticky issues included classification of human vulnerability by regions; the impacts of temporary overshoot; new risks arising from responses to climate change such as solar radiation modification; and the use of terminology of “population growth” in the context of vulnerability and exposure of ecosystems and people.

Regarding classification of human vulnerability by regions, one key controversial figure was ultimately dropped since most of the developing countries contested that the visual representation as well as multiple levels of vulnerability was lacking and/or incorrect. The key issue was the usage of two global indices in the figure, which had major shortcomings as pointed out by developing countries, who also argued that it was policy prescriptive. Another figure depicting climate resilient versus non-climate resilient development was also dropped hastily, after even developed countries reacted very negatively to its simplistic nature.

On the “impacts of temporary overshoot”, attempts to specify 1.5C in the title was pushed back by some developing countries since singling out 1.5C was not in line with the underlying assessment. Upon China’s insistence, a footnote was eventually inserted in the section to qualify that “despite limited evidence specifically on the impacts of a temporary overshoot of 1.5C, a much broader evidence base from process understanding and the impacts of higher global warming levels allows a high confidence statement on the irreversibility of some impacts that would be incurred following such an overshoot”.

On the issue of solar radiation modification (SRM) as one of the responses to climate change, except for the US, all developed and developing countries who intervened wanted to separate SRM from carbon dioxide removal and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage options, since SRM being a new technology with associated uncertainties as well as knowledge gaps, in line with findings of the underlying assessment. However, the US aggressively fought for a statement trying to downplay the risks of SRM and eventually, a separate paragraph on SRM was secured with diluted language to accommodate it.

As regards the use of terminology on “population growth” as one of the factors influencing future vulnerability of ecosystems to climate change, India registered concerns about its framing, debating that the inability to reduce high emissions arises from countries where so-called population growth is not an issue, while in the global South, even though population is growing the emissions are lesser in comparison. India said that the issue is about ecosystem management and not population growth, further arguing that the term has a colonial connotation and its usage is already outdated. Following long-drawn negotiations, consensus was reached to use “demographic pressures” in the relevant section of the SPM.

Among the governments who often intervened included India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, St. Kitts and Nevis, China, the US, Germany, France, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway and the European Union.

(Separate articles on the contentious issues will follow.)

The approved SPM comprises the following sections: (i) Introduction; (ii) Observed and Projected Impacts and Risks; (iii) Adaptation Measures and Enabling Conditions; and (iv) Climate Resilient Development.

The SPM conveyed a number of key messages in the form of headline statements.

(Headline statements comprise conclusions of the technical and scientific assessment undertaken and are primarily aimed for media use and the public, but are regarded by many governments as sensitive.)

Under observed and projected impacts, the SPM states that “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. Some development and adaptation efforts have reduced vulnerability. Across sectors and regions, the most vulnerable people and systems are observed to be disproportionately affected. The rise in weather and climate extremes has led to some irreversible impacts as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt.”

The SPM also states that the “vulnerability of ecosystems and people to climate change differs substantially among and within regions, driven by patterns of intersecting socio-economic development, unsustainable ocean and land use, inequity, marginalization, historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism, and governance. Approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change. A high proportion of species is vulnerable to climate change. Human and ecosystem vulnerability are interdependent. Current unsustainable development patterns are increasing exposure of ecosystems and people to climate hazards.”

In relation to risk in the near term (2021-2040), the SPM states that “Global warming, reaching 1.5 C in the near-term, would cause unavoidable increases in multiple climate hazards and present multiple risks to ecosystems and humans. The level of risk will depend on concurrent near-term trends in vulnerability, exposure, level of socioeconomic development and adaptation. Near-term actions that limit global warming to close to 1.5 C would substantially reduce projected losses and damages related to climate change in human systems and ecosystems, compared to higher warming levels, but cannot eliminate them all.”

On mid- to long-term risks (2041-2100), the SPM states that “Beyond 2040 and depending on the level of global warming, climate change will lead to numerous risks to natural and human systems. For 127 identified key risks, assessed mid- and long-term impacts are up to multiple times higher than currently observed. The magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions, and projected adverse impacts and related losses and damages escalate with every increment of global warming.”

Under the sub-heading on “Complex, Compound and Cascading Risks”, the SPM states that “climate change impacts and risks are becoming increasingly complex and more difficult to manage. Multiple climate hazards will occur simultaneously, and multiple climatic and non-climatic risks will interact, resulting in compounding overall risk and risks cascading across sectors and regions. Some responses to climate change result in new impacts and risks.”.

Under the sub-heading on “Impacts of Temporary Overshoot”, the SPM states that “if global warming transiently exceeds 1.5 C in the coming decades or later (overshoot), then many human and natural systems will face additional severe risks, compared to remaining below 1.5 C. Depending on the magnitude and duration of overshoot, some impacts will cause release of additional greenhouse gases and some will be irreversible, even if global warming is reduced. (Overshoot pathways in the report exceed 1.5°C global warming and then return to that level, or below, after several decades.)

In the section on “Adaptation Measures and Enabling Conditions”, the SPM states that “progress in adaptation planning and implementation has been observed across all sectors and regions, generating multiple benefits. However, adaptation progress is unevenly distributed with observed adaptation gaps. Many initiatives prioritize immediate and near-term climate risk reduction which reduces the opportunity for transformational adaptation”.

On future adaptation options and their feasibility, the SPM states “there are feasible and effective adaptation options which can reduce risks to people and nature. The feasibility of implementing adaptation options in the near-term differs across sectors and regions. The effectiveness of adaptation to reduce climate risk is documented for specific contexts, sectors and regions and will decrease with increasing warming. Integrated, multi-sectoral solutions that address social inequities, differentiate responses based on climate risk and cut across systems, increase the feasibility and effectiveness of adaptation in multiple sectors”.

On limits to adaptation, the SPM states that “soft limits to some human adaptation have been reached, but can be overcome by addressing a range of constraints, primarily financial, governance, institutional and policy constraints. Hard limits to adaptation have been reached in some ecosystems. With increasing global warming, losses and damages will increase and additional human and natural systems will reach adaptation limits”.

(“Adaptation limits” are described as the “point at which an actor’s objectives or system needs cannot be secured from intolerable risks through adaptive actions. “Hard adaptation” limit is described as “no adaptive actions are possible to avoid intolerable risks”, and “Soft adaptation limit” is described as “options may exist but are currently not available to avoid intolerable risks through adaptive action”.)

Under the sub-heading “Avoiding Maladaptation”, the SPM states that “there is increased evidence of maladaptation across many sectors and regions since the AR5. Maladaptive responses to climate change can create lock-ins of vulnerability, exposure and risks that are difficult and expensive to change and exacerbate existing inequalities. Maladaptation can be avoided by flexible, multi-sectoral, inclusive and long-term planning and implementation of adaptation actions with benefits to many sectors and systems.”

Under the sub-heading “Enabling conditions”, the SPM states that these “conditions are key for implementing, accelerating and sustaining adaptation in human systems and ecosystems. These include political commitment and follow-through, institutional frameworks, policies and instruments with clear goals and priorities, enhanced knowledge on impacts and solutions, mobilization of and access to adequate financial resources, monitoring and evaluation, and inclusive governance processes”.

On Climate Resilient Development, the SPM states that “Evidence of observed impacts, projected risks, levels and trends in vulnerability, and adaptation limits, demonstrate that worldwide climate resilient development action is more urgent than previously assessed in AR5. Comprehensive, effective, and innovative responses can harness synergies and reduce trade-offs between adaptation and mitigation to advance sustainable development”.

Under the sub-heading “Enabling Climate Resilient Development”, the SPM states that “Climate resilient development is enabled when governments, civil society and the private sector make inclusive development choices that prioritise risk reduction, equity and justice, and when decision-making processes, finance and actions are integrated across governance levels, sectors and timeframes. Climate resilient development is facilitated by international cooperation and by governments at all levels working with communities, civil society, educational bodies, scientific and other institutions, media, investors and businesses; and by developing partnerships with traditionally marginalised groups, including women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and ethnic minorities. These partnerships are most effective when supported by enabling political leadership, institutions, resources, including finance, as well as climate services, information and decision support tools.”

Under the sub-heading “Climate Resilient Development for Natural and Human Systems”, the SPM states that “Interactions between changing urban form, exposure and vulnerability can create climate change-induced risks and losses for cities and settlements. However, the global trend of urbanisation also offers a critical opportunity in the near-term, to advance climate resilient development. Integrated, inclusive planning and investment in everyday decision-making about urban infrastructure, including social, ecological and grey/physical infrastructures, can significantly increase the adaptive capacity of urban and rural settlements. Equitable outcomes contribute to multiple benefits for health and well-being and ecosystem services, including for Indigenous Peoples, marginalised and vulnerable communities. Climate resilient development in urban areas also supports adaptive capacity in more rural places through maintaining peri-urban supply chains of goods and services and financial flows. Coastal cities and settlements play an especially important role in advancing climate resilient development.”

The SPM also states that “Safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems is fundamental to climate resilient development, in light of the threats climate change poses to them and their roles in adaptation and mitigation. Recent analyses, drawing on a range of lines of evidence, suggest that maintaining the resilience of biodiversity and ecosystem services at a global scale depends on effective and equitable conservation of approximately 30% to 50% of Earth’s land, freshwater and ocean areas, including currently near-natural ecosystems.”

On achieving climate resilient development, the SPM states that “It is unequivocal that climate change has already disrupted human and natural systems. Past and current development trends (past emissions, development and climate change) have not advanced global climate resilient development. Societal choices and actions implemented in the next decade determine the extent to which medium- and long-term pathways will deliver higher or lower climate resilient development. Importantly climate resilient development prospects are increasingly limited if current greenhouse gas emissions do not rapidly decline, especially if 1.5C global warming is exceeded in the near term. These prospects are constrained by past development, emissions and climate change, and enabled by inclusive governance, adequate and appropriate human and technological resources, information, capacities and finance.

Besides the headline statements, following are some of the other highlights from the SPM that got approved:

—    “Climate change including increases in frequency and intensity of extremes have reduced food and water security, hindering efforts to meet Sustainable Development Goals.

—    Climate change has adversely affected physical health of people globally and mental health of people in the assessed regions.

—    Climate change is contributing to humanitarian crises where climate hazards interact with high vulnerability. Climate and weather extremes are increasingly driving displacement in all regions, with small island states disproportionately affected. Flood and drought-related acute food insecurity and malnutrition have increased in Africa and Central and South America. While non-climatic factors are the dominant drivers of existing intrastate violent conflicts, in some assessed regions extreme weather and climate events have had a small, adverse impact on their length, severity or frequency, but the statistical association is weak. Through displacement and involuntary migration from extreme weather and climate events, climate change has generated and perpetuated vulnerability.

—    Regions and people with considerable development constraints have high vulnerability to climatic hazards. Global hotspots of high human vulnerability are found particularly in West-, Central- and East Africa, South Asia, Central and South America, Small Island Developing States and the Arctic. Vulnerability is higher in locations with poverty, governance challenges and limited access to basic services and resources, violent conflict and high levels of climate-sensitive livelihoods (e.g., smallholder farmers, pastoralists, fishing communities)…Present development challenges causing high vulnerability are influenced by historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as colonialism, especially for many Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

—    Climate change will increasingly put pressure on food production and access, especially in vulnerable regions, undermining food security and nutrition. Increases in frequency, intensity and severity of droughts, floods and heatwaves, and continued sea level rise will increase risks to food security in vulnerable regions.

—    In the mid- to long-term, displacement will increase with intensification of heavy precipitation and associated flooding, tropical cyclones, drought and, increasingly, sea level rise.

—    Effective Ecosystem-based Adaptation reduces a range of climate change risks to people, biodiversity and ecosystem services with multiple co-benefits.

—    An increasing number of adaptation responses exist for urban systems, but their feasibility and effectiveness is constrained by institutional, financial, and technological access and capacity, and depends on coordinated and contextually appropriate responses across physical, natural and social infrastructure. Globally, more financing is directed at physical infrastructure than natural and social infrastructure and there is limited evidence of investment in the informal settlements hosting the most vulnerable urban residents. Ecosystem-based adaptation (e.g., urban agriculture and forestry, river restoration) has increasingly been applied in urban areas. Combined ecosystem-based and structural adaptation responses are being developed, and there is growing evidence of their potential to reduce adaptation costs and contribute to flood control, sanitation, water resources management, landslide prevention and coastal protection.

—    Financial constraints are important determinants of soft limits to adaptation across sectors and all regions. Although global tracked climate finance has shown an upward trend since AR5, current global financial flows for adaptation, including from public and private finance sources, are insufficient for and constrain implementation of adaptation options especially in developing countries. The overwhelming majority of global tracked climate finance was targeted to mitigation while a small proportion was targeted to adaptation. Adaptation finance has come predominantly from public sources. Adverse climate impacts can reduce the availability of financial resources by incurring losses and damages and through impeding national economic growth, thereby further increasing financial constraints for adaptation, particularly for developing and least developed countries.

—    Adaptation does not prevent all losses and damages, even with effective adaptation and before reaching soft and hard limits. Losses and damages are unequally distributed across systems, regions and sectors and are not comprehensively addressed by current financial, governance and institutional arrangements, particularly in vulnerable developing countries. With increasing global warming, losses and damages increase and become increasingly difficult to avoid, while strongly concentrated among the poorest vulnerable populations.

—    With adaptation finance needs estimated to be higher than those presented in AR5, enhanced mobilization of and access to financial resources are essential for implementation of adaptation and to reduce adaptation gaps. Building capacity and removing some barriers to accessing finance is fundamental to accelerate adaptation, especially for vulnerable groups, regions and sectors. Public and private finance instruments include inter alia grants, guarantee, equity, concessional debt, market debt, and internal budget allocation as well as savings in households and insurance. Public finance is an important enabler of adaptation. Public mechanisms and finance can leverage private sector finance for adaptation by addressing real and perceived regulatory, cost and market barriers, for example via public-private partnerships. Financial and technological resources enable effective and ongoing implementation of adaptation, especially when supported by institutions with a strong understanding of adaptation needs and capacity.

—    Inclusive governance that prioritises equity and justice in adaptation planning and implementation leads to more effective and sustainable adaptation outcomes.

—    Embedding effective and equitable adaptation and mitigation in development planning can reduce vulnerability, conserve and restore ecosystems, and enable climate resilient development…Integrated and inclusive system-oriented solutions based on equity and social and climate justice reduce risks and enable climate resilient development.

—    Climate resilient development is advanced when actors work in equitable, just and enabling ways to reconcile divergent interests, values and worldviews, toward equitable and just outcomes.

—    Inclusive governance, investment aligned with climate resilient development, access to appropriate technology and rapidly scaled-up finance, and capacity building of governments at all levels, the private sector and civil society enable climate resilient development...Climate resilient development is enabled by increased international cooperation including mobilising and enhancing access to finance, particularly for vulnerable regions, sectors and groups.

—    Climate resilient development pathways are progressively constrained by every increment of warming, in particular beyond 1.5 C, social and economic inequalities, the balance between adaptation and mitigation varying by national, regional and local circumstances and geographies, according to capabilities including resources, vulnerability, culture and values, past development choices leading to past emissions and future warming scenarios, bounding the climate resilient development pathways remaining, and the ways in which development trajectories are shaped by equity, and social and climate justice.

—    Climate resilient development is enabled when governments, civil society and the private sector make inclusive development choices that prioritise risk reduction, equity and justice, and when decision-making processes, finance and actions are integrated across governance levels, sectors and timeframes. Climate resilient development is facilitated by international cooperation and by governments at all levels working with communities, civil society, educational bodies, scientific and other institutions, media, investors and businesses; and by developing partnerships with traditionally marginalised groups, including women, youth, Indigenous Peoples, local communities and ethnic minorities. These partnerships are most effective when supported by enabling political leadership, institutions, resources, including finance, as well as climate services, information and decision support tools.”