Providing culture inputs into global discussions to avert, minimize and address loss and damage associated with the adverse impacts of climate change, with an emphasis on non-economic loss and damage.

The term “loss and damage” broadly refers to harm associated with the adverse effects of climate change, particularly where adaptation is no longer an option. But what constitutes loss and damage is context-dependent and often requires place-based understanding of what people consider worth protecting. As a result, the connections between loss and damage, and values, culture and heritage, are transversal, complex – and too often missing for the loss and damage conversation.   

Make no mistake: mitigating climate change and the magnitude of loss and damage is of paramount importance. The landmark Paris Agreement signed in 2015 embodies the consensus view that avoiding the worst impacts of climate change requires holding global warming to no more than 1.5°C over pre-industrial levels. Every increment of warming is of consequence and while 1.5°C of global warming is and will cause severe damage, the impacts of higher rates of warming will be significantly worse. For example, while coral reefs would decline significantly with global warming of 1.5°C, virtually all (> 99 percent) would be lost with a 2°C rise. 

The hopes of Paris, however, are rapidly being eclipsed by the grim realities of atmospheric physics.  Almost all emissions scenarios now suggest that global warming will pass the 1.5°C threshold within the next 10 years.  This raises the dark prospect of “overshoot,” a period in which warming increases above the 1.5°C before the earth then cools back down as a result of the ultimate achievement of net zero GHG emissions. 

During overshoot, risks to human systems will increase, including those to low-lying coastal settlements, some ecosystem-based adaptation measures and associated livelihoods, and cultural and spiritual values. Some impacts are essentially irreversible, even if temperatures decline again later – which they may not.  At current rates, the 2021 UN Emissions Programme Emissions Gap Report concludes that the world is on track for a catastrophic global temperature rise of 2.7°C by the end of the century. A world without coral reefs.  

Culture and heritage along with Indigenous and local knowledge systems area already experiencing loss from both slow and rapid onset hazards (and also sometimes maladaptation and mal-mitigation). Mounting harm from these lived experiences, coupled with looming tipping points like crossing the 1.5 threshold, have made loss and damage one of the most critical issues in climate policy.  Lacklustre action on the topic at last year’s COP26 has caused pressure to build for a breakthrough at the 2022 UN Climate Conference, COP27.   

The risk of climate harms is especially high for people and communities in vulnerable situations, the poor, and those who have been historically marginalized, such as women, children, Indigenous Peoples, peoples with disabilities, and people living in rural areas. Loss and damage also result in violations of a wide range of human rights including cultural rights. Moreover, as Karima Bennoune, UN Special Rapporteur in the field of Cultural Rights, has written: “those most affected by climate change – who have often done the least to contribute to it – have fewer resources to protect their cultures from its effects.”  

By contrast, most GHGs released into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial era have been from a few wealthy countries. The obvious climate justice issues raised by this discrepancy have given rise to demands that big historic emitters must pay for the climate-related damages their GHGs are largely responsible for causing. Developing countries have made it clear that securing a new loss-and damage finance facility to get funds flowing is a top COP27 priority. While a few developing countries have pledged funds for loss and damage, most resist these ideas, backing instead insurance schemes and other such measurers.

For the culture community, these issues came into sharp relief on September 23, 2022, when the UN Human Rights Committee held that Australia had violated the right to cultural identity of Torres Strait Islanders by failing to implement adequate climate adaptation measurers to protect them. The Committee found that  claimants are personally experiencing climate disruption now, including flooding of ancestral burial lands; loss by erosion of their traditional lands, including plantations and gardens; destruction of traditional gardens through salinification; and a reduced ability to practice their traditional culture and pass it on to the next generation.  

In a landmark decision, the Committee concluded that Australia’s failure to adequately protect indigenous Torres Strait Islanders against such adverse impacts was a breach of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which includes the right to cultural identity. The Committee held that Australia must provide effective remedies, including compensation.  

International policy distinguishes between economic and non-economic loss. Non-economic losses and damages (“NELs”) as defined by the UN includes losses of cultural heritage, indigenous/local knowledge, biodiversity and ecosystem services. But whether and how to put a monetary value on culture and heritage remains contested. The model of “cultural redress” found in New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal process (Māori: Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi) in the form of place name changes, land transfers, or agreements for joint management of rivers and lakes is a possible model, especially relevant for lost or damaged cultural values and expressions that are not easy or appropriate to value monetarily.  The choices made on these questions will have profound consequences on how culture is addressed in future loss and damage finance schemes and other compensatory, distributive and procedural equity and climate justice measures. 

Millions will face another dimension of loss: the multi-faceted challenges associated with climate change-related migration and displacement. Human migration can be understood as an adaptation strategy, but one which can be profoundly culturally disruptive, thus implicating loss and damage. The systemic nature of the problem points to the need to supplement individual resettlement with planned relocation of entire communities. Cultural strategies can help conserve the knowledge and heritage values of displaced communities; play a role in planning effective resettlement strategies, including helping displaced communities maintaining familiar practices and social relationships; and aid with inclusion and integration with receiving communities. 

Climate Heritage Policy Priorities: Advocate for attention to the cultural dimensions of loss and damage in relevant forums and the provision of technical assistance on cultural themes via the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage established at COP25. Support engagement by cultural actors in the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage (WIM), including its Expert Group on Non-Economic Losses. Emphasise culture-based actions to migration, displacement and human mobility, including as part of the WIM’s Task Force on Displacement.