[Proposal] Use of 'Loss and damage' term in place of 'Loss'

[stufraser1]

What is the context or reason for the change?

We need to make sure RDLS is seen as encompassing non-economic impacts of disasters and climate change, not only monetary loss. We have already seen evidence and had feedback that some read 'Loss' in the structure and conclude we only deal in monetary losses.

Why is this not covered by the existing model?

When creating the original schema 'Loss and Damage' was not a term used, but has since become widely used and recognised as encompassing economic and non-economic impacts Strictly speaking the word 'Loss' in 'Loss and Damage' is not used to refer to monetary/economic losses as the definition below describes, but including 'Damage' in our standard would signal the inclusion of non-monetary impacts in the standard and dataset we support. "Loss and damage refer to the negative consequences of climate change on human societies and the natural environment. Climate change is affecting the frequency, intensity and geographical distribution of extreme weather events such as storms, floods and heatwaves, and slow-onset events such as sea level rise, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity and desertification. All of these result in loss and damage, both economic and non-economic. Economic loss and damage may include damage to crops, homes or infrastructure. Non-economic loss and damage may include harm to human health and mobility; loss of access to territory, of cultural heritage and of indigenous and local knowledge; and loss of and damage to biodiversity and habitats." (LSE, 2022)

or

"“Loss and damage” is a general term used in UN climate negotiations to refer to the consequences of climate change that go beyond what people can adapt to, or when options exist but a community doesn’t have the resources to access or utilize them. This could include the loss of coastal heritage sites due to rising sea levels, or the loss of homes and lives during extreme floods. To date, there is no official definition of loss and damage under the UN." (WRI,2022)

What is your proposed change?

Where we refer to / label something as 'Loss' now, we should refer to 'Loss and damage' instead.

Can you provide an example?

https://github.com/GFDRR/rdl-standard/blob/dev/codelists/closed/risk_data_type.csv?plain=1 Code,Title,Description Hazard,Hazard,"Modeled hazard data, including scenario footprints, hazard maps and events sets." Exposure,Exposure,"Exposure data including built assets, natural assets and population." Vulnerability,Vulnerability,Physical and social vulnerability relationships and indexes. Loss_and_damage,Loss and Damage,Modeled loss, damage and risk data including monetary and non-monetary impacts.

[odscjen]

I suspect this is something that may cause a lot of conversation within the steering committee and wider community. As such I'd recommend that this is something that is looked at for the next update of the standard, not the one we're currently working on.

[stufraser1]

Agree on putting semantic change to SC review

[pzwsk]

Some additional considerations for the SC:

• The term Loss and damage has become part of the UNFCC/COP terminology and has been used to negotiate the response mechanisms/amount. See https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2022/11/14/world-bank-group-launches-global-shield-financing-facility-to-help-developing-countries-adapt-to-climate-change
• Although the term comes from the climate risk community, I think it has been used by World Bank and others to encompass non-climate types of hazards as well
• An option could be to keep loss in the standard, but add a definition in risk data type that it includes loss and damage information, including non-monetary information
• Overall, this is more about communication, uptake, and promotion of the standard, including targeting the right community of users

[pzwsk]

Through a conversation with a GFDRR colleague, I have been warned that the definition of loss and damage by the UNFCC/COP and the one used by the Disaster Risk community (UNDRR/GFDRR) have different definitions or connotations and that we should be cautious in the way we use or adopt the full term in RDLS.

However, my reading of the different definitions show that at this stage i) there is no single definition of loss and damage from the drm community (some may imply only monetary loss, others may talk about actual versus probabilistic loss, there is also the question of slow onset events, etc.) and ii) the definition from UNFCC/COP is not clear either. Even though it includes both economic and noneconomic loss and damage, it is not clear whether the definition includes potential loss and damage (i.e. scope seems to imply that it might not be necessary for a country to suffer from an actual climate disaster even to access the fund but that slow onset and or climate vulnerability would make them eligible)

See below definitions from the COP28. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma5_auv_10g_LnDfunding.pdf

Objective:

The purpose of the Fund is to assist developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change in responding to economic and noneconomic loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change, including extreme weather events and slow onset events.

Scope:

The Fund will provide finance for addressing a variety of challenges associated with the adverse effects of climate change, such as climate-related emergencies, sea level rise, displacement, relocation, migration, insufficient climate information and data, and the need for climate-resilient reconstruction and recovery.

Therefore, my suggestion is to keep with Loss only in the terminology but follow closely the implementation of the Loss and Damage Fund within the World Bank to see if this could become a new use case.

I also believe the RDLS is a great framework to think about the implementation of the Loss and damage fund from a data view point.