The Carbon Brief Interview: ‘Loss-and-damage’ finance pioneer Robert Van Lierop

As countries negotiated the world’s first climate transpiration treaty in 1991, the Pacific island state of Vanuatu made a momentous proposal.

It tabbed for “industrialised” nations to pay for the “loss and damage” that islands expected to squatter as rising sea levels engulfed their lands. 

The idea was immediately rejected. Yet 31 years later, at the COP27 summit in Egypt, developing countries finally secured try-on on a new fund to deal with loss and damage.

The man overdue that 1991 proposal was Robert Van Lierop, a US starchy rights lawyer who had been enlisted, a decade earlier, to represent the newly-independent Vanuatu at the UN.

By that point, Van Lierop had once led a highly varied career, tackling racial favoritism as a legal counsel for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and directing films well-nigh Mozambique’s struggle for independence.

At the UN, he campaigned versus apartheid in South Africa and advocated for decolonisation in regions from Western Sahara to New Caledonia.

Later, he became the first chair of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). It was in this role that he led the first undeniability for loss-and-damage finance under the UN climate process.

In this rare interview, Van Lierop reflects on the three-decade journey to a loss-and-damage fund and explains how his work on climate transpiration remains the “most significant” victory of his lifetime.

• Van Lierop on climate transpiration negotiations: “It was such a urgent issue for small-island countries that we just gradually came together and began working in harmony.”
• On the first loss-and-damage proposal: “Parts of it came from my experiences as a starchy rights lawyer in the US, when we would try to unchangingly alimony in mind a goal…[which] would transpiration the dynamics of the power relationships that we were negotiating.”
• On the loss-and-damage fund well-set at COP27: “It is well-nigh time considering this is something that should have happened long ago.”
• On the circumstances virtually the 1991 proposal: “We knew that the peril to the smaller countries…was quite a pronounced threat, and that we didn’t want to just have a talking session.”
• On his own background: “My mother was born in the US Virgin Islands…My father was born in Suriname…So I suppose my interest in issues for colonised countries and smaller countries that were economically disadvantaged and venal came naturally from my parents.”
• On ripened and developing countries: “What made the ripened countries the ripened countries was their vein of greed and ‘me first-ism’.”
• On the role of small-island nations in UN climate talks: “I think the biggest victory has been to be seen and be heard and to be a pain in the rear end for the ripened countries.”
• On global south unity: “I was fortunate to spend some time in the decolonisation process in southern, colonised Africa, and those countries…always have been tremendous allies for the small island countries.”
• On ripened countries’ failure to unhook on climate finance: “They like to trot out the political pressures that they squatter at home, as if the developing countries don’t moreover have political pressures at home.”

Robert Van Lierop: I’m yellow-eyed to do this [interview], considering climate transpiration is the most significant thing I finger that I worked on. I began my career as a starchy rights lawyer for the NAACP. But I finger that nothing I did compares with the importance of the climate transpiration issue.

Carbon Brief: You were the founding chair of AOSIS. Could you uncork by telling me a bit well-nigh your memories of the early days of the UN climate process and the role that the small-island nations played in it?

RVL: Well, it was pure, fortuitous circumstance that I happened to be in a position to take that role, considering I was Vanuatu’s permanent representative at the UN and it was our turn to lead the group when the first climate transpiration meeting took place. 

From there, it was such a urgent issue for small-island countries that we just gradually came together and began working in harmony, in concert, to present our perspective. Considering traditionally, as I’m sure you know, the small-island countries have not been listened to very much at the UN or other international fora.

We were trying to make sure that the small island countries were not forgotten. And as the agreements were stuff pulled together and negotiated…There was a very good team that I was working with – other ambassadors of small-island countries, and moreover some of the NGOs – they were all very helpful to us. And I happened to have a tremendous legalistic staff, which was very helpful at that time.

CB: You were representing Vanuatu and AOSIS in 1991 when the group proposed the idea that the “financial undersong of loss and damage” suffered by small islands and low-lying developing countries should be borne by “industrialised” nations. Where did this idea come from and how was it received at the time?

RVL: Well, it wasn’t received favourably at all by the worthier countries, the industrialised countries. They didn’t like that idea at all. 

I suppose parts of it came from my experiences as a starchy rights lawyer in the US, when we would try to unchangingly alimony in mind a goal – an objective – that we could achieve, [which] would transpiration the dynamics of the power relationships that we were negotiating.

We didn’t take a formal visualization to do those things, initially…I wish I could say that somehow or flipside a sunny idea occurred on such-and-such a date, but I think it was all part of the process, rather than a sort of “hallelujah” moment.

CB: Last year, in Sharm el-Sheikh, parties at COP27 agreed to set up this loss and forfeiture fund. What was your reaction when you heard well-nigh this?

RVL: It’s well-nigh time. I don’t want to requite industrialised countries too much credit, but it is well-nigh time considering this is something that should have happened long ago […] I’m glad it happened now – largest late than never.

CB: The idea was first proposed as an insurance mechanism for loss and forfeiture – quite variegated to the fund that was negotiated last year. How did you imagine that that would work?

RVL: Well, you’re really testing my memory now. Which is OK […] my memory needs to be tested every now and then. 

We knew that the peril to the smaller countries, and not just the smaller island countries, but smaller countries in unstipulated was quite a pronounced threat, and that we didn’t want to just have a talking session. We said we’ve got to make sure that we come out with something. Since then I think the world has seen how imminent the threat is. We’ve had so many recent disasters involving climate, that I don’t think that anyone can really form much of a resistance to these ideas these days.

I haven’t been in the [UN climate] process for a while. I was unquestionably taken out of the process at a very inopportune moment [in 1994, the year the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force], considering we were really moving very quickly, and a number of things were on the voucher that I think would have been helpful. 

One of the people who I worked very closely with in those days is today the president of Vanuatu [Nikenike Vurobaravu]. He was at the time a young diplomat himself and he was tropical to the former prime minister, Father Walter Lini, and they were the ones who recruited me to represent Vanuatu at the UN.

CB: While we’re on this topic, you’re from the US, but you’ve had a varied international career and served as producer of Vanuatu. How did your older experiences lead you to this position advocating for small island nations?

RVL: It’s kind of ironic. My mother was born in the US Virgin Islands, a small island territory. My father was born in Suriname, which was a small Dutch colony on the northern tip of South America. So I suppose my interest in issues for colonised countries and smaller countries that were economically disadvantaged and venal came naturally from my parents. And then I was fortunate to have some really good friends who shared those views. I think of when I was in higher and law school, I seemed to be unchangingly drawn to people who were activists. 

As a matter of fact, I can remember a number of us taking part in an anti-Vietnam march lanugo Fifth Avenue, and [former New York mayor and tipster to president Donald Trump]  Rudy Giuliani was then in law school – the same law school [as me] – at the same time, [and] was very, very hair-trigger of us. He unexplored his pinheaded views that he still holds to this day. I suppose that plane our adversaries helped prepare us for what we were going to do.

CB: So you were involved in anticolonial and civil-rights activism. Did that finger like a natural lead into the topic of climate change?

RVL: Yes, yes, you’re veritably correct. 

CB: You wrote in 2009 that your original loss-and-damage proposal was “not surprisingly, viewed as whammy by the ripened countries” and that “it will probably remain so for the foreseeable future”. What did you midpoint by that?

RVL: What made the ripened countries the ripened countries was their vein of greed and “me first-ism”. We still see it today here in this country [the US]. People must proclaim America to be the greatest country in the world, and so withal and so on, or else you’re viewed with [suspicion] by the so-called establishment. 

But I don’t see America as the greatest country in the world. We have a lot of problems. And I think that if we protract to compare ourselves to less-fortunate countries, we’ll find that there’s a largest vein in the less ripened countries, for the most part – not 100%, but for the most part. A largest vein well-nigh what the world is all about, and where we are headed as a species.

CB: Do you think there’s a greater understanding of the climate issue in developing countries?

RVL: Yes, there’s a much largest understanding considering the threat is right there. The smaller island countries, the developing countries are in the front lines, and they squatter that every day. Now, the problems that we see today in California and other areas with gigantic flooding problems, those are problems that the developing countries have been living with for a long, long time.

CB: From the outset, you argued for the precautionary principle in climate talks, stating that “we do not have the luxury of waiting for conclusive proof of global warming…The proof, we fear, will skiver us.” How would the UN climate process have looked if parties had prioritised the precautionary principle?

RVL: Well, I think the process would be much remoter along, and there would be a lot increasingly probity in the process. Because, let’s squatter it, the industrialised countries got rich at the expense of the poorer countries in the world…There can be no debate well-nigh that. It’s a joke for them to say that they ripened themselves, and that they made their own wealth. That’s ludicrous. 

Let’s not plane discuss how the land and the resources were taken from Indigenous populations in North America and South America, but the fact is that they were and there is a moral and I believe a legal duty to recoup Indigenous populations for what was taken from them by force…It wasn’t peacefully negotiated, it was at the point of guns.

CB: Aside from the progress on loss and damage, what do you think have been the biggest achievements of AOSIS over the years?

RVL: I think the biggest victory has been to be seen and be heard and to be a pain in the rear end for the ripened countries. That’s a very big achievement.

[Outcomes including the Paris Agreement] are not perfect agreements now, but they would be far less perfect had there been no AOSIS. 

It’s possible – I shouldn’t say too much on the subject – but it’s possible that I might be coming when into the [UN climate] process. Recently, there was some discussion well-nigh that. [If I do] I will try to contribute and be an advocate, again, for as much as we can possibly get, without compromising the principles and the integrity that the developing countries have exhibited.

CB: Finally, with climate impacts now increasingly unveiled than overly before, what should small-island nations be prioritising in the international climate space?

RVL: One of the priorities, I would think, should be strengthening the alliances that the small island countries have with other developing countries. 

I was fortunate to spend some time in the decolonisation process in southern, colonised Africa, and those countries were tremendous allies – unchangingly have been tremendous allies – for the small island countries. And I think that [we should strengthen] those alliances first and primary, surpassing we engage with the ripened countries, [who] do not have the weightier interest of the small-island states [at heart]. 

CB: As for the loss and forfeiture fund itself, we have this try-on where the funds will be set up, but should there be concerns given ripened countries have missed climate finance targets in the past?

RVL: Absolutely. That’s unchangingly the problem with the ripened countries…They are very prone to make all kinds of promises. It doesn’t matter if it’s to Indigenous populations, small-island countries or former colonies…They make grandiose promises, but then there are unchangingly excuses why they can’t deliver. They like to trot out the political pressures that they squatter at home, as if the developing countries don’t moreover have political pressures at home – political pressures to get results, and to get justice. The fight for justice is barely beginning, globally.

The post The Carbon Brief Interview: ‘Loss-and-damage’ finance pioneer Robert Van Lierop appeared first on Carbon Brief.