Warsaw International Mechanism Research Articles

The ethics of climate change loss and damage

AbstractIn the last decade, the international community has become increasingly aware that some negative impacts of climate change cannot be prevented. During the COP19 in Warsaw in 2013, the parties who agreed to the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) acknowledged that there were already greater climate impacts than could be reduced by adaptation (UNFCCC, 2014). These impacts have been called “loss and damage”, and the policies and measures that deal with them are usually referred to as L&D, or L&D measures or policies. Since then, examples of loss and damage have unfortunately become abundant, but we lack a systematic approach to the ethical issues surrounding loss and damage. This article provides an overview of some of the ethical issues surrounding loss and damage in the context of climate change. We discuss what should count as loss and damage, how access to justice for loss and damage should be granted and their different rationale, as well as issues of noneconomic and nonanthropocentric loss and damage.This article is categorized under: Climate, Nature, and Ethics > Ethics and Climate Change

The split ladder of policy problems, participation, and politicization: constitutional water change in Ecuador and Chile

There is debate about whether complex problems should be addressed technocratically or whether they should be politicized. While many tend to favour technocratic decision-making and evidence based policy, for others politicization of policy problems is fundamental for significant policy change. But politicization does not always lead to problem solving. Nor is it always necessary. This paper addresses the question: Under what circumstances should problems be politicized, and what is the effect of such politicization? It adds politicization, through windows of opportunity, to the split ladder of participation to assess policy change through two case studies: successful and unsuccessful constitutional change in Ecuador (2008) and Chile respectively (2022). It argues that where there is no agreement on either science or policy, politicization is required to address lack of consensus in values, but constitutional protection is needed to protect minorities and the vulnerable, their access and human right to water. De-politicization stymies policy change potentially harming democracy. This paper argues for a citizen engaged exploration of the complex problem of climate change and its impacts on water, but a targeted politicization coincident with, but developed well in advance of, windows of opportunity. Moreover, policy framing correlated with complex problems continues to be a key consideration. Furthermore, alliances of disparate actors, elections of new political leaders and considerations of property rights and justice issues are paramount. Significant constitutional policy change reflects social learning, but subsequent court actions by policy entrepreneurs is required to effectively implement this change. Framing constitutional change to protect rights to water and effect international agreements (including the Warsaw International Mechanism under the climate change regime) advances water justice and may increase success.

Putting the constructive ambiguity of climate change loss and damage into practice: The early work of the UNFCCC WIM ExCom

AbstractThe establishment within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts (L&D) resulted from a loose consensus that emerged based on a constructively ambiguous understanding of what climate change loss and damage is and how to best address this policy problem. Different actors have understood and advocated for divergent conceptualizations of L&D: some frame it through the lens of risk and see comprehensive disaster risk management strategies, insurance schemes and post hoc humanitarian approaches as most appropriate. Others understand it through the lens of climate justice, emphasizing the harms that arise because of climate change losses and damages and advocate for compensation as an appropriate policy response. How does this ambiguity embedded within the climate regime translate into practice during the implementation stage? This research shows that ideational contestation over L&D has specific implications for institutional development, including: (i) the composition and expertise of the governing Executive Committee (ExCom); and (ii) the practices of agenda‐setting and the development of the ExCom's workplan. Drawing on multi‐sited ethnographic data and interviews with key stakeholders, this analysis identifies some of the ways in which constructive ambiguity can become embodied and institutionalized in L&D governance. It also points to a paradox in international climate governance—that the very ambiguity that allowed for the institutional embedding of L&D is also the driver of continued contestation, facilitates the re‐negotiating of issues already agreed and explains institutional delays in effectively grappling with the losses and damages that are already taking place.

Time to pay the piper: Fossil fuel companies’ reparations for climate damages

Time to pay the piper: Fossil fuel companies’ reparations for climate damages

Climate change loss and damage governance. Where are we now? A case study from Fiji’s sugar industry

ABSTRACT Anthropogenic climate change loss and damage (L&D) is a key area of climate policy. Much of the L&D governance has been situated within the international climate regime. A major gap in L&D governance is the lack of understanding of how institutions are dealing with L&D policy and decision-making at national and industry scales. This study examines L&D governance with an emphasis on policy gaps, capacity constraints, availability of data, and access to climate finance in Fiji’s sugar industry. Systematic policy analysis and in-depth semi-structured interviews (n = 28) are conducted to gain insights into L&D governance in Fiji’s sugar industry. To date, the Ministry of Sugar Industry has been unable to develop climate change and disaster risk reduction policies and plans. Other institutional constraints in Fiji’s sugar industry to avert, minimise, and address L&D include lack of human resources with technical skills as well as limited data and access to financial resources. This research recommends key policy interventions such as developing L&D policy and action plans, building capacity, and implementing a standardised practice of data management between stakeholders for urgent climate action. At the international level, the Warsaw International Mechanism and the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage could be strengthened to mobilise urgent support and action, including finance and technical assistance to avert, minimise, and address L&D in vulnerable countries. Highlights Limited national L&D policy and mechanisms in Fiji have severe implications for farming communities and could exacerbate social-ecological systems vulnerability. The Fijian Ministry of Sugar Industry has been unable to develop robust climate change and disaster risk reduction policies to avert, minimise, and address L&D. At the international level, the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage must become fully operational and provide technical assistance for L&D needs assessment and strengthen L&D governance in developing countries.

Human rights and the Warsaw International Mechanism: an interdisciplinary approach to overcome a financial gridlock

ABSTRACT Climate change is a transdisciplinary wicked problem whose effects are causing widespread economic setbacks, jeopardizing fundamental human rights, and threatening people's lives and livelihoods. In addition to mitigation and adaptation, countries must frequently deal with another important aspect of climate change: loss and damage. Although losses and damages resulting from climate change have been increasing in the past years, countries continue to refrain from encompassing human rights in climate discussions and negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). By neglecting a broader framework, nation states weaken the response to loss and damage through the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM), in turn creating a gridlock in its finance scheme. Building on scholarly literature that sheds light on the necessity to encompass human rights as a response to loss and damage, this article explains how existing treaties and State obligations under international human rights law provide a base argument to overcome this gridlock and enhance the effectiveness of the WIM, without creating new obligations. Additionally, this article shows that a change in discourse may open an avenue to get funds to support the WIM. Rather than framing liability and compensation exclusively within climate law, States should bring a human rights rationale into climate talks, using existing obligations to comply with human rights treaties and to effectively respond to loss and damage. Key policy insights The WIM finance scheme is not fully operational because developed States avoid liability discussions, causing the current gridlock in climate talks. Many activities contribute to climate change and generate transboundary environmental impacts that limit the human rights of people outside of the territory where the impact originated. Developed countries are historically responsible for the majority of cumulative greenhouse gas emissions and have extraterritorial jurisdiction regarding human rights obligations. Consequently, they bear responsibility for losses and damages derived from climate change, which is caused by their emissions. An interdisciplinary approach in climate talks, which incorporates existing human rights obligations, has the potential to overcome the gridlock, enabling an operational finance channel within the WIM.

Evaluating progress on loss and damage: an assessment of the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism under the UNFCCC

ABSTRACT The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage Associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) was established in 2013, and its Executive Committee (ExCom) is developing a new five-year workplan. Seizing this opportune moment to assess institutional progress on the issue of loss and damage under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) we address two research questions: (1) Has the ExCom delivered on its workplans to date, and (2) how has the ExCom’s progress varied across thematic areas? Drawing on public documentary sources, we assess the effectiveness and timeliness of the delivery of activities across five thematic areas: slow onset events; non-economic losses; comprehensive risk management approaches; human mobility; and finance, action and support. We find that there has been progress across the thematic areas, but that it has varied in pace. Delays are associated with activities from the two-year workplan being moved into the first five-year workplan or being devolved to the more recently established expert groups. Our results also show that decisions from the Conference of the Parties (COP) or the COP serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA) have played a critical role in accelerating specific aspects of the ExCom’s work. Finally, we note that the ExCom is increasingly relying on its expert groups and their members to deliver many activities. This research advances our understanding of the nature and pace of progress on this issue, and raises new questions about the politics of global climate policy implementation. KEY POLICY INSIGHTS The WIM ExCom’s workplans are characterized by broad goals and are ambiguous about start dates and deadlines. To enhance accountability, future workplans would benefit from clearly defined objectives, outcomes, and timelines. The workplans do not seem to constitute strong commitments: Parties make use of COP/CMA decisions to strengthen the workplans by mandating specific activities or deadlines, adding new activities and prioritizing among existing ones. The politics of implementation merits greater attention: wider political dynamics around loss and damage shape the pace of the ExCom’s supposedly technical work. One example is the delayed establishment of the expert group on action and support.

Climate justice for small island developing states: identifying appropriate international financing mechanisms for loss and damage

ABSTRACT The inclusion of Article 8 in the 2015 Paris Agreement was, in part, an achievement of the advocacy efforts of small island developing states (SIDS) that sought recognition of climate-related loss and damage (L&D) in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). However, when a decision of the Conference of the Parties established that Article 8 of the Agreement does not involve or provide a basis for any liability or compensation, SIDS were left with limited options for financing L&D through the UNFCCC, delaying needed climate justice in view of their negligible contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Since then, several studies have evaluated a range of L&D financing options but without explicitly accounting for whether they can deliver justice for SIDS. In this article, we qualitatively analyze the appropriateness of five of the international financial mechanisms that scholars have argued should be urgently considered by the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism under the UNFCCC – levies on (1) airline travel, (2) fossil fuel extraction, (3) GHG emissions, (4) bunker fuel usage, and (5) financial transactions. Our results indicate that no single mechanism will deliver the justice that SIDS need but that, of the five mechanisms, airline travel levies and fossil fuel extraction levies are likely to be the most appropriate. Going forward, and as climate-related weather events intensify, a suite of fair, dependable, feasible, and suitable L&D financial mechanisms will be needed to better account for the special circumstances of SIDS. Key policy insights A specialized international L&D financing facility that is fair, dependable, feasible, and suitable for the special circumstances of SIDS is urgently needed. Inaction from establishing a specialized L&D financing facility will further burden particularly vulnerable countries, such as SIDS, that face the brunt of climate change impacts. Levies on airline travel and fossil fuel extraction would most appropriately account for and meet the needs of SIDS from a climate justice perspective. Any international financial facility should support strengthening governance, increasing compliance, and ensuring that flows are just.

Climate loss and damage in Pacific Island States: International law implications of evolving climate science

This article discusses the implications of recent developments in climate science for the efforts of Pacific Island States to avert, minimize and address loss and damage from climate change through international law. It discusses these implications in connection with three areas of international law pertaining to loss and damage: averting the threat of existential losses; minimizing loss and damage through adaptation and climate resilience; and addressing loss and damage through reparations for victims. As the article demonstrates, evolving climate science highlights the need for urgent action in each of these areas while providing fresh insight into the specific requirements for compliance with States’ international obligations related to such action. It examines how these obligations can be met through the established mechanisms of the international climate regime, including the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage associated with Climate Change Impacts. Further, it explores how, and to what extent, evolving climate science may bolster the evidentiary basis of climate cases seeking to hold States to account for failing to meet these obligations.

Towards a funding mechanism for loss and damage from climate change impacts

Finance for loss and damage from human-induced climate change impacts as it is recognised in the Paris Agreement is contentiously discussed in international negotiations, so far without any resolution. Based on 43 interviews with elite stakeholders working on loss and damage (L&D), this paper explores what components a funding mechanism requires to avert, minimise and address L&D, how funds are best mobilised and how they should be administered or distributed. Interviewees included actors in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change negotiations, small island developing states (SIDS) and developing country representatives, non-governmental organisations (NGO), Executive Committee members of the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM), multilateral organisations, environmental actors in the private sector, and developed countries. Through analysis of responses, diverse perspectives are presented and distilled into one potential mechanism. The paper offers insights into where opinions of interviewees align or misalign and inform a way forward for L&D funding in a politically sensitive environment. The majority of interviewees believed that L&D funds should be mobilised through the ‘polluter pays principle’ to finance components of a L&D mechanism that relate to a) adaptation and disaster risk reduction, b) insurance and c) solidarity. The Green Climate Fund or the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage have the potential to play an administrative role in a L&D finance mechanism. Compensation payments are overall considered impractical, not desired by developing countries and rejected by developed nations. Unexpected responses were related to investments into gender equality to reduce L&D, establishment of sovereign funds and usage of philanthropic organisations as a funding source for L&D.

Re-framing non-economic losses to non-economic impacts for effective policymaking: evidence from the Caribbean

ABSTRACT Weather-related natural disasters such as hurricanes are becoming more severe and more frequent due to human-induced climate change. Small Island Developing States are particularly vulnerable to such events. These extreme events have economic impacts on people’s lives but are also associated with non-economic losses (NELs) that are not easily quantifiable. The United Nations Convention Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has tasked the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage to find ways to ‘address’ these losses. While the UNFCCC and literature identify NELs, these remain broad and high-level examples, potentially not applicable in local contexts. Therefore, international climate change policies that are developed to address NELs are at risk of being inadequate and might not address the needs of people affected. This paper addresses this research gap based on interviews with residents from the Caribbean islands Dominica and Barbuda who survived hurricanes Maria and Irma in 2017. Responses show that the categorization of NELs under the UNFCCC only partially aligns with those NELs identified by interviewees. Firstly, interviewees do not make a distinction between economic and non-economic losses and secondly the term ‘non-economic loss’ is best expressed as ‘non-economic impact’ in order to encapsulate the full breadth of NELs. Both terms should jointly be considered as fulfilling ‘life-functions’. HIGHLIGHTS The UNFCCC categories are not reflective enough of the broad range of non-economic losses (NEL) that exist. ‘Non-economic loss’ should be re-framed to ‘non-economic impact’ as a loss does not encapsulate the full breadth of losses identified by interviewees Another category for NELs is required as people do not always distinguish between economic and non-economic losses when economic items fulfil a life function The findings are detrimental for effective international and national policymaking

The intractability of loss and damage issues in climate negotiations

The impacts of human-induced climate change are manifested through losses and damages incurred due to the increasing frequency and intensity of climatic disasters all over the world. Low-income countries who have contributed the least in causing climate change, and have low financial capability, are the worst victims of this. However, since the inception of the international climate regime under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), loss and damage has been a politically charged issue. It took about two decades of pushing by the vulnerable developing countries for the agenda to formally anchor in the climate negotiations text. This was further solidified through establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) and inclusion of stand-alone Article 8 on loss and damage in the Paris Agreement. Its institutionalisation has only done the groundwork of addressing loss and damage however - the key issue of finance for loss and damage and other matters has remained largely unresolved to date – particularly since Article 8 does not have any provision for finance. This has been due to the climate change-causing wealthy developed nations' utter disregard for their formal obligations in the climate regime as well as their moral obligation. In this article, we tease out the central controversies that underpin the intractability of this agenda at the negotiations of the UNFCCC. We begin by giving a walk-through of the concept and history of loss and damage in the climate regime. Then we present a brief account of losses and damages occurring in the face of rising temperature, and highlight the key issues of contention, focusing on the more recent developments. Finally, we conclude by suggesting some way forward for the twenty-sixth session of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP26) taking place in Glasgow, UK in November 2021.

Assessing losses and damages to ecosystem services: current state and opportunities for the Warsaw International Mechanism under the UNFCCC

ABSTRACT Ecosystems provide essential services that form the basis of human well-being. Climate change-induced losses and damages to ecosystem services (l&d-ES) thus have significant impacts on societies. Yet, little of the work on losses and damages (l&d) has focused on ecosystem services. Also in international climate negotiations, where the debate emerged with the establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM), there remains space for better understanding and addressing l&d-ES. Part of the explanation of this lies in the challenge of assessing such l&d. To address this gap, this paper reviews scientific literature and data obtained from Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNAs) to explore ways forward for more in depth assessments. The review confirms that little attention has been given to the topic, identifying 27 relevant scientific papers with only 6 providing a disaggregated monetary value for l&d-ES. Also amongst the 64 analyised PDNAs, only 12 report such disaggregated value; valuing just one ecosystem service per impacted ecosystem. The review finds that the majority of both the scientific literature and the PDNAs relies on extrapolating values from the literature. To enhance l&d-ES assessment and, with that, the opportunity for better understanding, recognition and uptake by e.g. the WIM, this paper makes three recommendations: 1. establishing a baseline of ecosystems recognized for their services of disaster risk reduction and/or climate change adaptation, while highlighting the need for an accessible and representative benefit transfer database; 2. enhancing collaboration between scientists and practitioners; and 3. quantitatively increasing data on l&d-ES. Key policy insights There remains space for better understanding and addressing l&d-ES. To facilitate assessing l&d-ES, the establishment of ecological baselines should be encouraged for ecosystem services that can be reported on in other circumstances. Additionally, a benefit transfer database is needed that is that is geographically and ecologically representative, explicitly oriented towards l&d-ES, and easily accessible to both researchers and decision-makers. Considering the divergence of ecosystems addressed by different stakeholders, it may be advisable to encourage the collaboration of a wide stakeholder range, including scientists, to collect data that advance the understanding of l&d-ES. Disaggregated assessment of l&d-ES should be quantitatively increased and the WIM could encourage the reporting of l&d-ES, in order to expand the database and understanding of l&d-ES.

State Responsibility for Climate Change Damages

The state’s liability for damages in the field of climate change remains one of those areas of international law that has not yet been comprehensively regulated. At present, the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, specific to the norms of international climate law, is not an alternative to the general principles of international law regulating responsibility and compensation issues of the states in the sphere of international climate law. The application of customary international legal mechanisms of responsibility of states in relation to climate damage can be a kind of challenge. Both the damage itself and elements such as causation or the possibility of attributing responsibility to the state pose a significant challenge in the sphere of climate protection. On the other hand, it is impossible not to notice that properly applied norms of general international law make it possible to overcome the difficulties arising from the specificity of the responsibility of countries for climate change. The latest jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice in environmental matters creates a framework for the settlement and implementation of possible liability for damages in the area of ​​climate change.

A just alternative to litigation: applying restorative justice to climate-related loss and damage

Climate litigation is increasingly a feature of international climate policy. However, loss and damage cases have mostly been unsuccessful due to tensions around uncertainty, attribution, and the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events. While there is consensus that Annex I Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have contributed more to historical greenhouse gas emissions than non-Annex I Parties have, there is great reluctance on their part to take responsibility for loss and damage. Considering the shortcomings of climate litigation and the impasse in the UNFCCC, we propose an alternative, non-judicial approach to addressing loss and damage – restorative justice. Applying a four-stage framework, we draw on the experience of non-Annex I Parties in the Caribbean with Hurricanes Irma and Maria in 2017 to (1) argue that existing attribution models can help identify restorative justice cases; (2) scope a role for the Warsaw International Mechanism in process design and preparation; (3) make a case for truth and reconciliation conferences, and restitution, as part of the restorative dialogue; and (4) call for the integration of restorative justice norms into global climate governance as a pathway for progressing negotiations.

Framing Loss and Damage from climate change as the failure of Sustainable Development

ABSTRACT Debates around “Loss and Damage” (L&D) from anthropogenic climate change have expanded rapidly since the adoption of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) in 2013. Despite the urgent need for scientific best practice to inform policies to avoid, minimize and address L&D, the nascent research field faces internal disagreements and lacks a coherent conceptual framing, which hinder scientific progress and practical implementation. We suggest that the most coherent, comprehensive and integrative approach to framing and dealing with L&D is by understanding it as resulting from a chain of failures or inabilities to maintain a Sustainable Development. Available theories of Sustainable Development give meaning and orientation to risk reduction efforts to avoid and minimize L&D, as well as to processes of L&D accounting and compensation; in particular clarifying “what should be sustained” when undertaking efforts to avoid, minimize or address residual L&D. However, different theories of Sustainable Development inevitably lead to different metrics to assess L&D and consequently different governance approaches when dealing with L&D, which has implications for future vulnerability and development. Our approach opens up new avenues for research, and has both conceptual and practical repercussions for the Paris Agreement and the global stocktake.

The Issues of Loss and Damage Within the International Climate Law

Climate change has become an important element on the international political agenda and presents the international community with new legal challenges. Some consensus was reached at the 1992 Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Since COP 16 (Cancun 2010) Loss and Damage (L&D) was accepted in international climate negotiations and on COP 19 (Warsaw 2013) the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) for loss and damage related to climate change impacts was established. At COP 21 (Paris 2015) with Article 8 of the Paris Agreement (PA), the topic of loss and damage officially entered a new international legal system. However, in paragraph 51 of Decision 1 / COP 21 to accept the PA any liability or compensation is expressly excluded from Article 8. Nevertheless, the concept of loss and damage has become an independent third pillar of the international climate regime and points to the negative effects of climate change, which cannot be avoided by adaptation and mitigation. The concept of loss and damage is expected to address the inevitable impacts of climate change, particularly affecting the most vulnerable least-developed countries (LDCs), low-lying developing countries and small island developing states (SIDS). The purpose of this article is to give an insight into the L&D discourse.

Making sense of the politics in the climate change loss & damage debate

The Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (L&D) associated with Climate Change Impacts (WIM) was established in 2013 to advance i) knowledge generation; ii) coordination and iii) support to address losses and damages under the UNFCCC. So far, the work undertaken by the WIM Executive Committee (ExCom) has focused on enhancing understanding and awareness of the issue and promoting collaboration with relevant stakeholders. Delivering on the WIM’s third function on action and support has lagged behind, and ‘the political’ nature of L&D has often been blamed for this. Key terrains of contention among Parties have included the positioning of L&D governance vis-à-vis the adaptation space and struggles around state liability and compensation. As a way to facilitate discussion on implementation options, recent research has suggested de-politicising aspects of the L&D debate; yet we have very little insight into how the politics are understood within the realm of international L&D governance. This paper brings an analysis of ‘the political’ into the picture by identifying the complex and underlying issues that fuel contention within UNFCCC L&D negotiations. It gives centre stage to the way different framings of norms and material interests affect the debate, and challenges the tendency in current L&D literature to overlook the socio-historical and political underpinnings of this area of policy-making. We employ a qualitative multi-methods research design which draws on content analysis of 138 official Parties’ submissions and statements, 14 elite interviews with key current and former L&D negotiators and is built on a foundation of 3 years of participant observation at COPs and WIM meetings. We approach this data with a political ethnographic sensibility that seeks to explore how meanings are constructed within and across different sources of data. Our empirical results show that, rather than being a monolithic dispute, L&D catalyses different yet intertwined unresolved discussions. We identify five areas of contention, including continued disputes around compensation; conflicts on the legitimacy of L&D as a third pillar of climate action; tensions between the technical and political dimension of the debate; debates over accountability for losses and damages incurred; and the connection of L&D with other unresolved issues under the Convention.

Interpreting the UNFCCC’s provisions on ‘mitigation’ and ‘adaptation’ in light of the Paris Agreement’s provision on ‘loss and damage’

ABSTRACTThis article examines how the introduction of a specific provision on loss and damage (L&D) in the Paris Agreement affects the construction of provisions on ‘mitigation’ and ‘adaptation’ as established within the treaty framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It shows that the establishment of L&D at treaty level has created a legal basis for finding ‘responsibility’ for adverse consequences that can be attributed to the failure to fulfil UNFCCC obligations as laid down in the provisions on mitigation and adaptation. This, it argues, strengthens the legal basis for pursuing remedies aimed at reparation for these consequences, such as the establishment of climate change funds and of insurance solutions. Moreover, it demonstrates that prior to establishing L&D at treaty level, L&D issues and measures (such as the Warsaw International Mechanism) were treated in legal terms within the framework of adaptation. However, with the adoption of the Paris Agreement, L&D has been given its own legal basis and therefore L&D issues and measures must henceforth be treated within this new framework.Key policy insightsThe provisions on mitigation and adaptation in the UNFCCC may be re-interpreted in light of Article 8 of the Paris Agreement so as to instil a legal responsibility in the UNFCCC provisions on mitigation and adaptation.The limits of ‘adaptation’ must be re-defined in light of the adoption of the Paris Agreement and the introduction of L&D as a third pillar of international climate change law.

Research Handbook on Climate Change, Migration and the Law, Research Handbooks in Climate Law

The Research Handbook on Climate Change, Migration and the Law has been written at a time when we are entering into new international developments addressing different forms of human movement in the context of climate change. While these developments are not binding on States, they nevertheless enshrine important commitments and prescribe actions to be taken in response to future challenges. For instance, in 2018, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (Migration Compact) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, the first global agreement addressing all forms of migration worldwide. Objective 2 of the Migration Compact lists the commitments of States regarding ‘natural disasters, the adverse effects of climate change, and environmental degradation’. Furthermore, the Task Force on Displacement (established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage) has delivered its recommendations to ‘avert, minimise and address displacement related to the adverse impacts of climate change’.1 Also, the International Law Commission has established a new Study Group on ‘Sea-Level Rise in relation to International Law’, whose mandate is to analyse, inter alia, the protection of persons affected by rising sea levels due to anthropogenic climate change.