Ben Adler, Why the Words “Loss and Damage” Are Causing Such a Fuss at the Paris Climate Talks, Vox Energy – Env`t, www.vox.com/2015/12/9/9871800/paris-cop21-climate-loss-damage (Update 09.12.2015, 09:00). Parity culminated in two ways at COP20: 1) with negotiations on the elements necessary to include the parties in their planned national contributions (“INDC”) to be presented before COP21; and 2) at the heart of the new agreement.  It is likely that developed countries have argued that NDCs should focus exclusively on reduction. Developing countries disagreed and supported the inclusion of adaptation.  In the end, developing countries have emerged, as shown in the text of CoP20, which “refuses to include all parties in their commitments in adaptation planning or to include an adjustment element in their planned national contributions.”  The parties also agreed that the new legal instrument to be developed at COP21 would be “balanced” in terms of adaptation and mitigation.  Losses and damages have not only a clean article in the Paris Agreement, but also an article of medium length. By five paragraphs, Article 8 on loss and injury is an average article of the Paris Agreement.  These five paragraphs, as well as judgments 47-51, focus primarily on recognizing the importance of “minimizing and managing losses and damages related to the adverse effects of climate change” and on the creation of the Warsaw International Mechanism as a formal mechanism for international governance under the Paris Agreement. Article 8 states that the parties must “cooperate” to repair and minimize losses and damage from climate change.  It provides examples of “areas of cooperation and facilitation to improve understanding, action and support” in terms of loss and damage.  Examples include “early warning systems; Emergency preparedness Slow events, as well as “comprehensive risk assessment and management; Risk insurance . . .
. and the resilience of communities, livelihoods and ecosystems.  This article will begin to compare the historical treatment of adaptation, loss and damage with mitigation in international climate change negotiations. The article will then analyze the treatment of adaptation, loss and damage in the Paris Agreement. A dichotomous interpretation of the CBDR-RC led to an international agreement on the Convention and its Kyoto Protocol. Industrialised countries (Annex I) committed to absolute emission reduction or limit targets, while all other countries (excluding Appendix I) did not have such commitments. However, this rigid distinction does not reflect the dynamic diversification between developing countries since 1992, as evidenced by the diversity of contributions to global emissions and economic growth models (Deleuil, 2012). Dubash, 2009).