he 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), outlines 17 global goals dedicated to ending poverty, protecting the planet, and ensuring peace and prosperity for all by 2030. Built on the overarching principle of “leave no one behind,” the SDGs draw on lessons learned from the implementation of previous development agendas with respect to social, environmental, economic, and governance dimensions.
SDG Progress Remains Slow, Uneven
Despite the noble aspirations of the SDGs, progress towards achieving these goals has been slow and uneven, with the most vulnerable and marginalized communities often left behind. This is particularly evident in the current climate debate, where the needs and concerns of these communities are often given low priority, or even ignored. Indeed, the climate crisis is a global problem that affects everyone–but it is not experienced equally. The devastating effects of climate disasters are already inflicting damage on the most vulnerable communities around the world, and both slow and rapid-onset climate events are only expected to worsen in the upcoming years. Practitioners and activists are pushing for climate justice, reminding us that the most vulnerable communities–including Small Island Developing States, low-income countries, and Least Developed Countries–are those that are most affected by the climate crisis.
Additionally, indigenous groups and local communities comprised of those who depend on natural resources and steady climatic conditions for their livelihoods–such as peasants, agrarians, and pastoralists–will be affected the worst despite their historically small contribution to global warming, especially compared to developed countries and the Global North. Even more concerning, these communities have the smallest number of resources to adapt and cope with the changing climate, leaving them in a state of chronic vulnerability. Therefore, the special levels of protection these communities require must be taken into account, and that stakeholders’ attention be brought to these vulnerable populations in an effort to help them regain their agency through financial and technical resources.
Ultimately, representatives from Small Island Developing State countries, climate justice activists and other affected people have been raising powerful public awareness and political attention to bring this urgent matter to the top of the agenda.
Using “Loss and Damage” to Support Those Most Impacted by Climate Change
“Loss and Damage” is a term used to describe the devastating and irreversible impact of climate change on communities, economies, and ecosystems around the world. Climate change-related Loss and Damage is not only about the physical destruction of property and infrastructure, but also about the profound injustices that result in the loss of livelihoods, cultural heritage, and development opportunities. These latter “non-economic” Losses and Damages demonstrate how psychological effects can lead to climate trauma, as well as explain why adaptation measures alone are insufficient. Indeed, at the end of COP27, the negotiating parties finally agreed to a compromise – but only under the condition that high-income countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states would be among the payers, rather than the recipients, of financial reparations.
By the next COP28, it is expected that the technical details for this financial support will be finalized, and discussions will be held around who will need to pay into a Loss and Damage financing fund – and who will receive money from it in the event of climate disasters. This outcome is a historic breakthrough, as a financial scheme for Loss and Damage has been in talks since 1992, particularly by low-income and developing countries. Therefore, it is both long overdue and essential for the future that nations most vulnerable to climate change begin to rely less on the goodwill of rich nations. Luckily, a mandatory Loss and Damage fund would be able to provide financial aid after every disaster and thus help those affected by the crisis more effectively and quickly. However, this raises the question of whether countries in the Global North will agree to allocate a new budget, or if already existing financial commitments will be re-labeled or re-allocated.
To date, responsible states have attempted to focus on basic needs and rely on the architecture of market mechanisms already in place, thus creating yet another bureaucracy responsible for solving sustainable financial problems. However, viewing “Loss and Damage” not only as a financial mechanism designed to replace economic losses but also as a turning point in development policy opens up the ability to scrutinize the underlying causes of vulnerability as well as create ethical, equitable, meaningful, and productive engagement at multiple scales. Hence, the politics of “Loss and Damage” goes hand-in-hand with the premise of putting those most vulnerable first.
To unlock the potential of a Loss and Damage fund, political considerations must overcome the perception that Loss and Damage is a bargaining game between the Global South and North. This means acknowledging the reality of the situation and committing to supporting the communities most affected by climate change. It requires a shift in perspective, from seeing Loss and Damage as an abstract concept to recognizing it as a humanitarian crisis that demands immediate attention and action. Addressing Loss and Damage also requires a more compassionate and cooperative approach to climate policy – rather than viewing climate change as a political or economic problem to be solved, it must be seen as a moral obligation to support those who are suffering as a result of our collective failure to act. Ultimately, this translates into breaking down the barriers between nations and communities and working together to find solutions that prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable. In addition, there are demands to include guidelines to promote human rights and intergenerational equity, and to combat economic and gender inequality as well. After all, the goal is to have fewer rambling declarations and more policies and regulation mechanisms in place that hold the polluters accountable.
In conclusion, the climate crisis is a global problem that requires a global solution. If we are to meet the aspirations of the SDGs and leave no one behind, we must shift away from the current amoral "climate game" and move towards a commitment to compassion and cooperation at all levels. It is possible for us to build a more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable future for all, but it requires a commitment from all actors – including governments, international organizations, civil society, and the private sector – to work together to put the needs of the most vulnerable communities at the forefront of all policy-making decisions. The way forward is clear: climate policy requires a new approach that places compassion and cooperation at the center of all policy decisions, making sure that the last ones are, indeed, put first.
a global affairs media network
Put the Last Ones First to Align Climate Policy With SDGs
Photo by sophia valkova on Unsplash
March 2, 2023
The UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) are built on an overarching principle of leaving nobody behind. SDG progress is lagging, as is climate progress more granularly. Putting our most vulnerable communities first can fix this and align global climate policy with the SDGs, writes Sara Grambs.
T
he 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), outlines 17 global goals dedicated to ending poverty, protecting the planet, and ensuring peace and prosperity for all by 2030. Built on the overarching principle of “leave no one behind,” the SDGs draw on lessons learned from the implementation of previous development agendas with respect to social, environmental, economic, and governance dimensions.
SDG Progress Remains Slow, Uneven
Despite the noble aspirations of the SDGs, progress towards achieving these goals has been slow and uneven, with the most vulnerable and marginalized communities often left behind. This is particularly evident in the current climate debate, where the needs and concerns of these communities are often given low priority, or even ignored. Indeed, the climate crisis is a global problem that affects everyone–but it is not experienced equally. The devastating effects of climate disasters are already inflicting damage on the most vulnerable communities around the world, and both slow and rapid-onset climate events are only expected to worsen in the upcoming years. Practitioners and activists are pushing for climate justice, reminding us that the most vulnerable communities–including Small Island Developing States, low-income countries, and Least Developed Countries–are those that are most affected by the climate crisis.
Additionally, indigenous groups and local communities comprised of those who depend on natural resources and steady climatic conditions for their livelihoods–such as peasants, agrarians, and pastoralists–will be affected the worst despite their historically small contribution to global warming, especially compared to developed countries and the Global North. Even more concerning, these communities have the smallest number of resources to adapt and cope with the changing climate, leaving them in a state of chronic vulnerability. Therefore, the special levels of protection these communities require must be taken into account, and that stakeholders’ attention be brought to these vulnerable populations in an effort to help them regain their agency through financial and technical resources.
Ultimately, representatives from Small Island Developing State countries, climate justice activists and other affected people have been raising powerful public awareness and political attention to bring this urgent matter to the top of the agenda.
Using “Loss and Damage” to Support Those Most Impacted by Climate Change
“Loss and Damage” is a term used to describe the devastating and irreversible impact of climate change on communities, economies, and ecosystems around the world. Climate change-related Loss and Damage is not only about the physical destruction of property and infrastructure, but also about the profound injustices that result in the loss of livelihoods, cultural heritage, and development opportunities. These latter “non-economic” Losses and Damages demonstrate how psychological effects can lead to climate trauma, as well as explain why adaptation measures alone are insufficient. Indeed, at the end of COP27, the negotiating parties finally agreed to a compromise – but only under the condition that high-income countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states would be among the payers, rather than the recipients, of financial reparations.
By the next COP28, it is expected that the technical details for this financial support will be finalized, and discussions will be held around who will need to pay into a Loss and Damage financing fund – and who will receive money from it in the event of climate disasters. This outcome is a historic breakthrough, as a financial scheme for Loss and Damage has been in talks since 1992, particularly by low-income and developing countries. Therefore, it is both long overdue and essential for the future that nations most vulnerable to climate change begin to rely less on the goodwill of rich nations. Luckily, a mandatory Loss and Damage fund would be able to provide financial aid after every disaster and thus help those affected by the crisis more effectively and quickly. However, this raises the question of whether countries in the Global North will agree to allocate a new budget, or if already existing financial commitments will be re-labeled or re-allocated.
To date, responsible states have attempted to focus on basic needs and rely on the architecture of market mechanisms already in place, thus creating yet another bureaucracy responsible for solving sustainable financial problems. However, viewing “Loss and Damage” not only as a financial mechanism designed to replace economic losses but also as a turning point in development policy opens up the ability to scrutinize the underlying causes of vulnerability as well as create ethical, equitable, meaningful, and productive engagement at multiple scales. Hence, the politics of “Loss and Damage” goes hand-in-hand with the premise of putting those most vulnerable first.
To unlock the potential of a Loss and Damage fund, political considerations must overcome the perception that Loss and Damage is a bargaining game between the Global South and North. This means acknowledging the reality of the situation and committing to supporting the communities most affected by climate change. It requires a shift in perspective, from seeing Loss and Damage as an abstract concept to recognizing it as a humanitarian crisis that demands immediate attention and action. Addressing Loss and Damage also requires a more compassionate and cooperative approach to climate policy – rather than viewing climate change as a political or economic problem to be solved, it must be seen as a moral obligation to support those who are suffering as a result of our collective failure to act. Ultimately, this translates into breaking down the barriers between nations and communities and working together to find solutions that prioritize the needs of the most vulnerable. In addition, there are demands to include guidelines to promote human rights and intergenerational equity, and to combat economic and gender inequality as well. After all, the goal is to have fewer rambling declarations and more policies and regulation mechanisms in place that hold the polluters accountable.
In conclusion, the climate crisis is a global problem that requires a global solution. If we are to meet the aspirations of the SDGs and leave no one behind, we must shift away from the current amoral "climate game" and move towards a commitment to compassion and cooperation at all levels. It is possible for us to build a more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable future for all, but it requires a commitment from all actors – including governments, international organizations, civil society, and the private sector – to work together to put the needs of the most vulnerable communities at the forefront of all policy-making decisions. The way forward is clear: climate policy requires a new approach that places compassion and cooperation at the center of all policy decisions, making sure that the last ones are, indeed, put first.