Making Climate Law Work
Exploring how legal tools shape climate action in practice, from the Energy and Climate Change Law Institute and qLegal at Queen Mary University of London.
Making Climate Law Work
Loss and damage: who is paying the global climate bill?
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
"Litigation is an exercise of narration. Lawyers working in the climate space should not shy away from the science, because understanding it is key to building your argumentation."
For decades, Loss and Damage was a diplomatic taboo, too close to the language of legal liability for UN negotiators to touch. Now, as climate impacts become irreversible, the courtroom is catching up. Hosts Manuela Motta Zini and Julieta Herrera are joined by Jameela Joy Reyes, specialist at the Grantham Research Institute at LSE, to explore who is being held accountable for the climate bill and how. From the landmark Lliuya v. RWE case, where a Peruvian farmer took on a German energy giant, to the challenge of quantifying losses that have no price tag - cultural heritage, biodiversity, home. This episode asks whether regulatory compliance is still a viable defence against foreseeable harm, and what it really takes to win a climate case.
Link to our guest's social media accounts:
Instagram: @jameela.joy
LinkedIn: Jameela Joy Reyes, linkedin.com/in/jameela-joy-reyes-joy-29400797/
Key references:
On a former episode, me and Huniet, we had a vast conversation with Harjin Arula, where we explored how international law defines states' obligations on climate change. But for decades, loss and damage has been a spotlight on climate negotiations, especially when international community try to identify who should be responsible to pay the bill. Mainly, the debate arises in the context on how the most vulnerable nations, which are those least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, are demanding compensation for irrecible damage from the main contributors to climate change. For today's topic, we'd like to welcome Hamela Jaires. She has degrees in psychology and political science from the Ateneo de Manila University in the Philippines, a jurisdictor's degree from the University in the Philippines, and also a master's science in global, environmental, politics and society for the University of Edinburgh. Nowadays, she works at the London School of Economics as a policy officer in the climate attribution. Welcome to Making Climate Law Work, a podcast exploring how legal tools shape climate action in practice. From the Energy and Climate Change Law Institute and Q Legal at Queen Mary Versaff London. We are Manuela and I'm Julieta. And today we explore more about loss and damages in the climate change context. From the end of this episode, we hope to explore, first, the categories of loss and damages, second, the challenges of attributing liability to actors for climate harm. Third, the tools and instruments used by the international community. And then the future trends. We like to thank Joy for your presence in our podcast episode. We think she definitely will bring important valuable talks in our talk today. In our previous episode, we explored how states are committed to adaptation plans. However, even the most robust measures cannot prevent all climate harm. Article 8 of the Paris Agreement acknowledges this reality by establishing a distinct framework for, and I quote, addressing loss and damage associated with the adverse effect of climate change. Since this provision covers a broad spectrum, could you clarify, Joy, the different types of losses involved and the key distinctions between them?
SPEAKER_00Thank you, Manuela. That's a really important question to start of this conversation. When we talk about loss and damage, we generally think about two things, right? Loss and damage is in capitalized L and D, which is the political term used in the UNFCC process, and small letter losses and damages, which are used to refer to climate impacts. And so in the last 30 years since its first mention, it wasn't until 2013 in the Warsaw International Mechanism that it fully became part of the international negotiations. And it wasn't until 2015 in the Paris Agreement, as you said earlier, that the provision on loss and damage was fully incorporated. And so currently we still don't have a formal definition of loss and damage, but its working definition is that these are losses and damages that countries and communities can no longer adapt to because of several constraints, such as financial or technical resources issues. And so that's a really important point to start with, where losses and damages are things that are actually being experienced already. And loss and damage is the term used in the international negotiations. So loss is usually defined as permanent and irreversible harm, such as loss of life, loss of biodiversity, loss of territory and land. While damages are usually understood to be those that can be restored, like damaged infrastructure, homes, buildings, etc. So when you take a look back, in the UNFCC definition, there are two kinds of losses and damages, or loss and in the loss and damage conversation. It's going to be quite confusing when you make sure that you don't conflate the two of those. So you have non-economic losses and damages, which are things that are not quantifiable in the market, including, you know, loss of biodiversity, ecosystem services, culture, traditional livelihood, knowledge, etc., and economic losses that include buildings or damages to infrastructure because of impacts of climate change. So those are two different things. Many groups say that maybe discussing it in the context of economic and non-economic can be problematic. Some people have brought up potentially using the differentiation of physical and sociocultural losses. But just to say that in the conversation, loss and damage is the term that we're using, economic and non-economic losses and damages are also what we use to refer to the impacts.
SPEAKER_02Thank you, Joey. That was really fascinating to understand this kind of spectrum of losses and damages. But for example, in your perspective, since we have this range of loss and damages, uh, which type of LDE tends to be easier to address in, you know, in the practice?
SPEAKER_00I think, and that's also a really important question to ask. I think it's easier, not to say that easier is always a hard term to explain, right? But in the context of the UNFCCC process, for instance, it's the economic losses and damages that states are usually tending to see that can be repaired or can be restored much easier than, say, loss to cultural knowledge and traditional livelihoods and stuff like that. Precisely because of the economic nature of these things. And sometimes, and actually most of the time, economic losses and damages become a result of extreme weather events rather than slow onset events. So you get damage to infrastructure because of flooding or typhoons. However, losses of territory, which is non-economic, could sometimes be a result of sea level rise or desertification. So when something that is more apparent is easier to address versus something that could take a while because of the nature of the impact.
SPEAKER_01From a governance perspective, what international mechanism or instruments are currently rely upon to quantify these damages?
SPEAKER_00So in the UN specifically, there is the very recently, just of as of two years ago, the fund responding to loss and damage, FRLD. The conversations are still continuing on that side. Just recently, there was a discussion on the Barbados implementation modalities or the BIM. So the FRLD is the UN mechanism used to respond to as a fund used to respond to losses and damages. However, currently, even after studies have shown that the needs of global south and developing communities are in the billions, the current amount in the fund is around 750 million USD, which is nowhere near enough to meet the needs of countries and communities that need the most. There's also the Santiago Network for Loss and Damage. So where the fund is on providing and dispersing amounts, which it still hasn't done because it's still in its operationalization phase, the Santiago Network connects essentially technical experts with people and communities who need that expertise in order to draft their own plans for loss and damage. So these are the two things that we are currently seeing. Quite interesting to note as well in loss and damage, and perhaps something that we will notice throughout the rest of the conversation is that loss and damage, well, it was part of the Paris Agreement. There is a caveat in paragraph 51 in the text operationalizing the Paris Agreement, saying that it does not form a basis for compensation or liability. And that's a really, really important caveat to make. So now that means in the current conversations, loss and damage is not a mandatory task for developed states to contribute because, again, it does not form a basis for liability or compensation. All the funding that we have at the moment are made out of or in the context of solidarity or equity principles, but not necessarily mandatory obligations as against states. So this issue is increasingly emerging in the radar of national and international courts, and it's very, very interesting to see how that will move going forward.
SPEAKER_01I follow your point about the phone, Joy, but I have the impression it might be like use a seed to stop a flood. Beyond the financial gap, there is a profound ethical challenge in putting a price tag on non-economic damages. We're talking about culture, ancestry, and ecosystems that money simply cannot replace. So, given this priceless nature joy, how are legislation and courts attempting to interpret these intangible losses without stripping them any of their cultural value? More specifically, how can courts actually justify and determinate compensation for non-economic loss and damages? And what are the primary challenges that judges face when try to quantify the priceless?
SPEAKER_00I think that's a massive conversation in and of itself. And we could spend hours just talking about how you can quantify something that is essentially priceless. How do you put a price tag on something that cannot be put in the market and be sold? One thing that we've seen that the courts have been trying to do is kind of framing the conversation into human rights discussions, especially when that is a cause of action of the plaintiffs. I think very interestingly, and one of the most recent cases we've seen is the case filed by Greenpeace against the Dutch government in the Bonaire case. There, the courts did not just say that Greenpeace or that the Netherlands should have strong mitigation policies on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but also strong adaptation policies in order to protect the human rights of the citizens or the residents of Bonaire. And that's really important and that's really interesting, also because they mentioned that under Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights, the Dutch government was treating the residents of Bonaire differently from those living in the state of the Netherlands, as in the geographical scope of the state of the Netherlands. So that was really, really interesting. So, in that sense, also they said, you know, that the citizens or the Dutch government knew about Bonaire and its particularly vulnerable situation, particularly to sea level rise, and yet it did not take enough sufficient measures to mitigate the impacts of climate change in that area. And that was really interesting. It didn't really say the terms, you know, like loss and damage or non-economic loss and damage. It didn't really even mention the UNFCC conversation as much. It used the European Convention on Human Rights, saying that these non-economic losses can form part potentially of human rights conversations that are then things that you can have conversations with in the courtroom, because the European Convention on Human Rights exists and other human rights declarations are in exist as well. So that's a really, really interesting take. I'm really keen to see how that will be used in future cases, especially now that there is unequivocal knowledge that sea level rise will take place and you know because of climate change.
SPEAKER_02Thank you, Joey. I think it's very interesting how you are showing the complex and the technical aspects of how you intertwine the human rights with these loss and damages, and also the complexity of the Santiago network in real practice. And I think this uh brings us to a broader uh like legal reflection on how does international law characterize the financial contributions made by states to this type of funds? Because, like, in other words, uh, given the purpose of addressing loss and damages, could such contributions you think could be ever be interpreted like as a form of implicit acknowledgement or a self-confession of responsibility by the countries? Or are they clearly structured to avoid any connection to legal liability? And uh finally, how does the UN determine the allocation of these resources? Are they specific criteria or they prioritize uh guiding that process?
SPEAKER_00Thank you, Julieta. Yes, I think that I mentioned earlier and still resonates in this question is that you know, when when the loss and damage conversations, um, when the negotiations for the Paris Agreement were taking place and loss and damage was brought up by developing countries and SIDS and the Alliance of Small Island States, essentially they agreed on the incorporation of loss and damage in Article 8 of the Paris Agreement. However, again, paragraph 51 of the text operationalizing the agreement says that loss and damage does not form any basis for liability or compensation, in which case, anytime developed countries will provide money or pledge contributions into the fund responding to loss and damage, it is never an implicit self-confession, precisely because of the nuance in paragraph 51. In their heads, it is a form of solidarity, of helping out communities, etc. So that's really, really important nuance to make. And I guess just a reminder that, you know, we're all moving closer towards climate justice, um, however we understand that to be, but that there remains to be nuances and complexities that we still need to grapple with, um, especially in like the fine text, in the fine line of the text. The fund responding to loss and damage is currently um asking for submissions under, again, the Barbados implementation modality, where I think around 250 million US dollars uh will be allocated to particularly developing, particularly vulnerable nations, and another 250 million will be open for submissions to everyone else. And the proposals to be submitted are due in June 2026. Um, so we won't know until then who will be getting how much money and for what purposes. And I know that sounds very, very vague currently, but there are current processes that are taking place. We're just currently in the middle of it, and so we can't really make a final judgment about how the money will be used and how much will countries get.
SPEAKER_01As you mentioned, we are currently in the middle of a very uncertain process when voluntary pledges often feel like an incomplete equation for climate justice. If an international framework continues to avoid the language of compensation, the question of accountability remains wide open and shareholders increasingly demand answers. Since identifying a liable subject is such a complex legal puzzle, what are the prime challenges to identify who should pay the bill for these loss and damages?
SPEAKER_00Um, so this is the whole climate justice conversation, right? Where essentially we've civil society and and other NGOs have been saying, as well as developing countries, that those who benefited the most from climate change needs to be held responsible for the impacts of climate change to those who benefited the least and are experiencing its most intense impacts. So we had a conversation earlier that everything in the UNFCC is voluntary in nature. There are no mandatory requirements to provide money into the fund. However, there are a few domestic initiatives that are currently happening where they're kind of transferring the voluntary nature of paying up into something more mandatory. And two things that come into mind are the superfund in the US. I think that's Oregon and a couple other states that have their own superfunds, essentially an accumulated source of funding from major polluters that countries that communities can use whenever they experience climate impacts, which are all currently, if I'm not mistaken, and I might need to fact-check myself on this, all currently under question in the US courts on whether this is constitutional. Another kind of initiative, this time from the global south, is the Klima Bill in the Philippines, which has been refiled as health bill number 4420. So the CLIMA bill creates essentially two things. One is a framework for business accountability, and should they fail on that framework on accountability, this businesses will then contribute to a fund that communities will use after, say, typhoons, floods, etc. And these two kind of nationalize and turn mandatory this international voluntary commitments, right? So that's really, really interesting. As of our conversation, the CLIBA bill is still pending with the House of Representatives. The Philippines is bicameral, so you need a sister act in the Senate. Um, and then after which they will be combined and hopefully be passed into law. But just to say that, you know, increasingly nationally, people are trying to see how they can navigate the voluntary expressions of international UNFCC negotiations into something that is more concrete and something that could be held mandatorily as against corporations who are airing in the face of the climate crisis.
SPEAKER_02Thank you so much, Joy. I think, yeah, that's a crucial point of this climate litigation. And building on that, identifying who should bear the climate bill, that still remains very complex and uh it's a huge challenge. Even with these uh advances in designs, the responsibilities of them very collective uh rather than be individualized. So, from your legal perspective, uh how have the courts have been interpreted and engaged with this type of technical and scientific evidence in this climate litigation?
SPEAKER_00Thank you, Julieta. Yes, I think actually the main crux of our work in the Grantham Research Institute, particularly on our team in climate law and evidence, where we look at whether or how courts are engaging with the science. So I guess first I'll talk very briefly about what attribution science is. So, in very simple terms, attribution science is this emerging field of climate science that creates a connection between or finds the connection, the causal link between the emissions of a particular economy or a particular corporation and the impacts on particular plaintiffs. So attribution science essentially has given us the cause and effect link. And more recent cases, especially after say 2015. So attribution science started in 2003. It wasn't until maybe like two decades later. So now that it's really Been featuring prominently in many of the cases. And one of the first cases, and one of the first actually concluded cases that used attribution science was the case of Luciano Niuya versus RWE. And that's a really, really, I think it started in 2015, ended in 2025. So that was a whole decade of proceedings. And in the time that the case kind of grew, science also emerged quite rapidly. So at the beginning, it was just very broad strokes of the responsibility of corporation RWE. By the end of it, there were very strong, really well-researched, thoroughly peer-reviewed, intellectually rigorous scientific papers released on the topic, creating that link. So the case of Luciano Yuya versus RWE is about the Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Yuya in the Andes, who filed a case against German giant RWE, a cement and an energy company, essentially asking RWE for a proportion of its share so that Saul can create adaptive measures because of the risk of glacial lake outburst flood. And so this was a 10-year process. Eventually he asked for 0.38% of RWE's historical emissions as part of his adaptive measures. And while the case failed on the basis of the legal threshold, essentially the regional court of Hum said that the legal threshold of risk was not met, it did as well set very significant precedence that might be used for more cases moving forward. For number one, it said that, you know, companies can, in principle, be held liable for climate-related harms. And that's a really, really important conversation to have. They also simultaneously emphasized that there is a precise causal link that plaintiff will have to establish in the courtroom. There were plenty other things that the courts really engaged with. So talked about attribution science, talked about the role of corporations, but really it talked as well about so many corporations, many defendants question their role in the climate conversation. The court in Ham said actually even 0.38% is massive enough. And so something that we think is a small percentage is ultrally already big. And that's why corporations can be held liable. They also said that, you know, corporations should have known by at least the nine the mid-1960s that climate change is real and should have taken appropriate steps. So all of these show that, you know, courts aren't working in isolation. Courts, judges read the newspapers, judges see the floods, you know. And so they have been, whether it's in the depths that scientists do it or not, they're still really navigate with the science and engage with the science. Um, and it's seen in their decisions, and it was very much seen in the case of Yuya versus RWE. Um, and there are many other cases currently. There is the, for instance, the Asmania versus Holcem case, a case of um parry islanders in Indonesia against Swiss giant Holsim. Um, so that's past the admissibility stage in December. Very interesting how the science will be discussed there and whether the courts will engage with the science. There's the case of Pakistan versus RWE and Heidelberg materials, again, in very, very early stages, but will need science. So, again, really interesting to see how the courts in Germany will respond to that. And finally, there's the case of the typhoon survivors of a debt in the Philippines against Shell. This is interesting because the procedural law will be Philippine law, but substantive law will be UK law. So, again, quite interesting to see how or whether the courts will engage with the science when it is presented and in front of them. Because, you know, they're not science, um, judges are not scientific experts, but it matters that they're able to kind of understand the complexities of the science in order to make their decisions.
SPEAKER_01You mentioned that while science has evolved rapidly, the legal threshold of risk and causality remains a barrier, as seen in the case mentioned of RWE. Even with attribution science, linking specific emissions to specific damage is still a hard procedure huddle for plants. In your opinion, it is time for the law, let's say, to catch up with the science by shifting the bird of proof to the major emitters.
SPEAKER_00That's gonna be a massive legal theory question, right? Um, and we know that for instance, in actually, I am slumped by this question. Um, when when I was first thinking about it, I think that the science is robust, first of all, um of attribution. I think there are plenty of groups that are working on rapid attribution, extreme event attribution. What I think matters more than necessarily shifting the burden of proof is being able to explain the science in a way that judges understand. So that when they create their decisions, when they draft their decisions, they're able to incorporate both sides of the story. Which brings me to the point that more than the discussion of burden or standards of proof, is that litigation is an exercise in narration. The role of lawyers, the role of legal teams is to be able to dilute and translate complex scientific terms into ways that are understandable by legal audiences. And if we always say this in our workshops with the Grant them team, is it's not necessarily, you know, the most complex science that wins cases. It's not necessarily the most complex legal defense strategy or legal strategies that win cases. It's the kinds of cases, the cases that win are those that are able to present their evidence in a way that is understandable by judges, in a way that is legally relevant, and in a way that creates a story. And so I think before we go into the conversation of shifting the burden of proof or shifting, I guess, like standards of proof, it's about, and maybe this is um a challenge to all our listeners, especially those who are lawyers and going to be part of legal teams, is how are you able to create that story from a person, from a plaintiff who has been impacted by a specific climate damage and who will then go against a specific defendant who has contributed to that climate harm. Maybe that's the climate justice story, right? Where you don't, I mean, obviously, there is still plenty of things to talk about in legal theory, but I think the climate justice story is about how you create that link in a way that is compelling and relevant to people who will be deciding these cases.
SPEAKER_01Following that thought, when we consider who should truly pay the climate bill, a big question arises regarding corporate operations. I mean, does straight regulatory compliance still serve as a shield against liability?
SPEAKER_00That's actually really interesting. Um, and that I think many cases have mentioned um that as well, especially defendants. Defendants would normally, as an argument, say that, well, we're well within specific regulations and should not be held liable for harms. But currently and increasingly, we're seeing that companies can still be held liable for foreseeable climate harms even when they operate within existing regulations. Um, and this is most seen in, say, the corporate framework cases. They look at transition plans, for instance. How strong are companies' transition plans? How well are they cutting down their emissions? What are their current policies and how is that in line with global standards? So that's really, really interesting. And then backward looking as well is you know, you have this polluter-based cases where courts have been talking to defendants about their role in disinformation, misinformation campaigns. Their operations could have been, you know, lawful because they have the required licenses for it, but the way that they delimited their responsibility by saying that they didn't know about climate change, or if they knew about climate change, they didn't know about their impacts, could still keep them liable, depending, of course, on cost of action. In the US, there are plenty of fraud negligence cases against big oil, such as Honolulu versus Total, etc. And these are all like these all just show us that, you know, even with the existence of regulations, that's not necessarily a cover for a corporation to be doing um things that will exacerbate climate change or will increase impacts and harms to the plaintiff.
SPEAKER_02Thank you, Joey. And building on that, uh, while we, you know, like being discussing about these compensatory measures uh to aim repairing these loss and damages, uh well, there is a growing debate around whether the law should also be uh playing a more proactive role in these cases, right? So uh, for example, uh with these standard regulations that are well failing or not containing these emissions fast enough, uh the focus may shift from simply paying the damage to potentially punishing negligence, that it's more aggressive play a role, right? So this raises a controversial but very important question. So could these punitive damages serve as a tool to address climate-related loss and damage, uh, even where a company is operating uh within the existing legal standards of it?
SPEAKER_00I think, well, that remains to be seen, uh, depending on jurisdiction, perhaps, depending on the cost of action and what the asks of the plaintiffs are. It could be. Um, but that will depend on the type of case that is being filed, whether it's a forward-looking case, which includes, you know, like corporate framework cases and government ambition cases, or a backward-looking case, which are like the polluter-based cases. Um so yeah, that will depend on what cases are being filed, what strategies are being employed, and like what the jurisdiction's allowable um argumentations will be. So, in a very lawyerly answer, the answer is that will depend.
SPEAKER_01Thank you, Joy. That that brings a very strategic question to mind regarding international legal framework. Beyond specific regulations, can foundational environmental principles such as precaution and polluter pace be effectively leveraged to address climate change and hold corporations accountable for loss and damages?
SPEAKER_00That's actually really interesting because we haven't seen this so far yet, um, at least in the in the cases that we've been looking at. But that said, these principles have been mentioned by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion. So it might be that future cases will also invoke these principles of precautionary principle and of pull uterpase principle. But I think this is a really interesting fact that you that Hardj spoke before me because I think that the conversation of the ICJ will become very, very relevant in conversations moving forward. Um, I know we all know that the ICJ does not hold binding precedent, but it does hold moral authority and moral weight. And that's why the Dutch court in Bonaire also mentioned the ICJ. Um, and so yeah, future cases might use these principles, but so far we haven't seen them in as much depth in many of the cases.
SPEAKER_02Thank you, Joey. And just like taking into consideration about what you were mentioning about the ICJ, how might they shape this in future development? How you are are seeing this in your perspective.
SPEAKER_00So I work with a group on reparations, for instance. So reparations in the context of climate litigation might grow because of the ICJ advisory opinion, as well as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights' advisory opinion. So that's really, really interesting where that goes. Second is the use of fossil fuels. Um, we there was a mention in the ICJ on um breaching of it or the creation of internationally wrongful acts if courts go beyond their budgets on fossil fuel use, development, exploration, etc. So that's also really interesting. And then there's the 1.5 standard, which the ICJ said we should keep ourselves limited to as a temperature goal. I think what the ICJ did really well is that it kind of brought together in one very important document different arguments made in different jurisdictions and provided more in-depth explanation. So many cases since the release of the ICJ advisory opinion have made reference to the AO. Courts have started to make reference to the AO as well. The UNFCCC negotiations, at least inside the rooms, make reference to the AO, although it did not appear in the text. So I think it's really interesting to see how we've used the ICJ AO almost as a guiding light, a North Star of sorts, to guide decision making and to guide the strategies in making all of these cases.
SPEAKER_01That was perfect, Joy. I think we have covered the most critical aspects of current loss and damages landscape. Now, I would like to look ahead at the future perspectives. Based in your research and analysis, what are the emerging trends in this field? Specifically, how are global approaches to loss and damages involving beyond traditional financial compensation?
SPEAKER_00Yeah, um, I think that's a major challenge, right? Like that's a major trend. And some jurisdictions have done it differently. So, Manuela, you might be better at this than me, but I remember like in Brazil, there is the deforestation damages case, which is deforestation, a non-economic loss and damage, however, it was quantified through the amount of emissions that these trees could have extracted from the atmosphere. So that's really, really interesting. How courts are trying to be a little more creative in how compensation could be done. And again, the reparations debate, right? Like this, we might see more of that in the future, perhaps not in the term reparations, but definitely in other similar terms, such as compensation for climate harms, liability, etc. And with the growth of attribution science, we might see more cases that are emanating from the global south. So we've seen currently that most of the climate cases from the global south, at least as mentioned in the Global Trends Report, which is something that we release every year, is that the climate cases are usually adjacent to, say, deforestation cases or human rights cases or land rights cases or tenure cases, um, but not necessarily climate cases. Um, but with exponential growth in attribution science, with the rapid analyses that groups are now being able to do, perhaps we could see a major growth in climate cases from the global south, whether that's against global north companies, global north countries, or even their own respective governments. So that's a trend that we're also looking forward to. We're also looking forward to see how the ICJAO and the fund responding to loss and damage and the UNFCC might potentially, you know, come together because currently there remains to be some gaps in their respective mandates. Um, so that's also exciting to see. And again, like there are so many cases. I think every day there's one new case filed against a corporation or a country, and by the end of this year, we might have as much as there's been the last decade. But science is emerging quite rapidly, the law is catching up, and you have the UN processes as well. So there's a lot to look out for, and it's quite an exciting time to be in this space at the moment.
SPEAKER_02Thank you, Joe. Yeah, it is very exciting to see these future trends. And just uh for the last question about this topic, looking at the institutional landscape, that we have seen significant progress with the fund responding to loss and damage, moving from a concept uh to an operational reality. Uh, Joy, uh, could you provide us like an update on the current status of this fund? And more importantly, how is the international community navigating the consequences of uh the US withdrawal from these climate commitments? And just like further, going further to these questions, uh, how losses and damages could be impact uh once US uh, you know, they recently revoked the greenhouse gas emissions limitations.
SPEAKER_00Yeah, that's a really important question. I think um so as they said earlier, there are around 700 million USD, 750, um, that has been bledged. Not all of those have been actually contributed by these countries, so that's a major thing to look out for. Many civil society have called for funding that should be new, additional, predictable, and adequate. And also the replenishment. If you finish whatever has been contributed out of that 700 million, what do you do next? That's also a different question to ask that is relevant. Um, so yes, so currently submissions are being their call for submissions by June. We'll know how much countries will have and and um who among these countries will get the amount, but that's currently our standing in the fund responding to loss and damage. So not much in that situation. The US conversation, however, is really, really critical, I think. And I think this is a multilateral space. And what's interesting to me personally, and as well as with conversations with colleagues, is that even with the US pulling out, we have been seeing emerging leaders in the climate conversation, especially Brazil, India, and China have started to step forward and increase their commitments for renewable energy, for instance, and just transition. So that's also really interesting. Whether, again, it might be too early to say whether the US pulling out will have massive influence internationally. Um, but we do know is that many countries are stepping up. However, domestically, it might be difficult for the US, right? Um, that would mean there are plenty of current cases against um against the major fossil fuel companies. So quite interested to see whether or not those will be decided differently as opposed to everywhere else in the world. But just to say that, you know, um, in the multilateral space, the US is a massive player, but people are stepping up, countries are stepping up, and more than anything, this will impact the US more than other countries. And that's something that they need to consider as well in their respective domestic policies moving forward.
SPEAKER_01So today we have the opportunity to explore loss and damages from multiple perspectives. While this conversation could easily extend for several more episodes, it is time to say goodbye. But before it, I want to thank our special guest, Hamela Jarez, for sharing such profound insights. Joy, the floor is yours for any final reflections. And please feel free to share how our listeners can follow your research and stay in touch.
SPEAKER_00Thank you, Manuela. Um, nothing much to say, just that especially for the LLM students and the environals perhaps listening in, it's just, you know, litigation is an exercise of narration. Um, and I need, well, I don't need, but it would be nice if lawyers did not shy away from the science, particularly if they work in the climate space, because understanding the science is key to understanding how you can create your argumentation and always come back to the stories of the plaintiffs and of those who need the redress most. And whether that's in the UNFCCC, whether that's in the courts, the important thing is to amplify the needs of the plaintiffs and of those who have not benefited but are most vulnerable to climate change. Um, you can follow me. I'm on LinkedIn, Jamila Joy Reyes, as well as on Instagram, Jamila.joy. But thank you very much, Julieta and Manuela. This was a very, very great conversation, and I hope I was able to um to say everything quite well, in spite of the the time that we have. But very happy and looking forward to seeing you perhaps in person soon, one of these days.
SPEAKER_01We hope this episode encourages you to dig in more on the subject of climate change. Thank you for listening to us. We look forward to continue the conversation in the next episode.