Since January, swathes of southern Africa have been suffering from a severe drought, which has destroyed crops, spread disease and caused mass hunger. But its causes have raised tough questions for the new UN fund for climate change losses.
Christopher Dabu, a priest in Lusitu parish in southern Zambia, one of the affected regions, said that because of the drought, his parishioners “have nothing”- including their staple food.
“Almost every day, there’s somebody who comes here to knock on this gate asking for mielie meal, [saying] ‘Father, I am dying of hunger’,” Dabu told Climate Home outside his church last month.
The government and some humanitarian agencies were quick to blame the lack of rain on climate change.
Zambia’s green economy minister Collins Nzovu told reporters in March, “there’s a lot of infrastructure damage as a result of climate change”. He added that the new UN-backed loss and damage fund, now being set up to help climate change victims, “must speak to this”.
Reverend Christopher Dabu outside his church in Lusitu, Zambia (Photo: Joe Lo)
But last week, scientists from the World Weather Attribution (WWA) group published a study which found that “climate change did not emerge as the significant driver” of the current drought affecting Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Angola, Mozambique and Botswana.
Instead, they concluded that the El Niño phenomenon – which occurs every few years with warming of sea surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific Ocean – was the drought’s “key driver”. They said the damage was worsened by the vulnerabilities of the countries affected, including reliance on rain-fed farming rather than irrigation.
Nonetheless, briefing journalists on the study, co-authors Joyce Kimutai and Friederike Otto said climate change does make El Niños stronger and more frequent – and therefore could be playing an indirect role in the southern African drought. Otto noted that climate change “might have a small role but not a big one”.
While WWA studies have often found that disasters like this are driven by climate change, there have been other cases where they have played down that link – as with droughts in Brazil in 2014 and Madagascar in 2021, and floods in Italy in 2023.
The complex nature of the science raises a dilemma for those now designing the fledgling loss and damage fund.
Its board holds its first meeting in Abu Dhabi this week. In three days of talks, the board’s 26 members will discuss the fund’s name and how to decide where it will be hosted and who will lead it. Trickier issues like the role of climate change attribution will be left to future meetings.
Climate Home spoke to several experts and two of the fund’s board members, whose opinions were divided on whether the link between climate change and a particular disaster should have to be proven before funds are dished out to affected communities.
Droughts and climate change
Egyptian climate negotiator Mohamed Nasr, a member of the new fund’s board, said he thought triggers for funding “would include the climate relation to the losses and damages”.
But to judge that connection, he said the board would “rely on confirmed science per the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) rather than individual studies”. He said the IPCC and UNEP “provide the scientific reference needed as they bring all views and assess the credibility and scientific basis”.
The IPCC does not do original research, including attribution studies, but every five to seven years it compiles existing research to reach conclusions about climate change, including its impacts. The last IPCC report focused on that topic in 2022 said “increases in drought frequency and duration are projected over large parts of southern Africa”.
UNEP currently does not conduct attribution studies, with a spokesperson saying this was “due to resource constraints” but adding “we hope to do more in the future”.
Another loss and damage fund board member, who wanted to remain anonymous, said the fund should only disburse money for loss and damage caused by climate change. But they asserted that due to the “chicken and egg” link between climate change and El Niño, the current southern African drought is climate-driven and so its victims should be entitled to funding.
‘Theoretical disputes’
Mattias Söderberg, who works for humanitarian organisation DanChurchAid – which has been defining and addressing loss and damage since 2019 – said attribution “is not always easy”.
But, he added, “people facing disasters should not be left behind because of theoretical disputes about attribution”.
Speaking ahead of a visit to a Kenyan refugee camp for people displaced by what he calls “loss and damage and climate-related conflicts”, he said, “I’m pretty sure they will be frustrated if they knew funding to help them cope could be questioned.”
The loss and damage fund, with advice from scientists, should draw up categories of disaster that tend to be driven by climate change – like heatwaves and droughts but excluding earthquakes which are not, he added.
Tensions rise over who will contribute to new climate finance goal
Zoha Shawoo, who researches loss and damage at the Stockholm Environment Institute, said that even if climate change played only a small role in the latest southern Africa drought, previous climate disasters had made the region’s people more vulnerable to the drought.
In addition, the current dry spell leaves them more vulnerable to future climate disasters, she added. “If they don’t receive financial support for recovery, future losses and damages will be a lot worse,” she said.
Gernot Laganda, director for climate and resilience at the UN’s World Food Programme, said that a formal attribution requirement for the loss and damage fund feels like “overkill” for a still relatively small fund. Transaction costs should be kept as low as possible, he added.
Data gaps
Kimutai, who worked on the WWA study, said she was confident the group had enough data to reach its conclusions on this particular drought. But she told a webinar hosted by the CGIAR agricultural research centre last month that a lack of data in many poorer countries means a funding requirement of attribution to global warming would be “detrimental to climate justice”.
In 2022, WWA was unable to work out the role of climate change in a drought in the Sahel region of Africa, partly blaming a lack of data. One of the drought-hit countries was Mali – which is three times the size of Germany. Mali has just 13 active weather stations, while Germany has 200, according to Bloomberg.
Limiting frontline voices in the Loss and Damage Fund is a recipe for disaster
Kimutai added that, besides data, there is a lack of expertise in doing these kinds of studies in the Global South.
Any moves to deny funds to vulnerable people impacted by drought – whatever the causes – are likely to be met with anger. Speaking to journalists about the southern Africa emergency a few days after the WWA study was issued, Chikwe Mbweeda, Zambia director for the aid agency CARE, said that “for us, we definitely understand that [the drought] is coming from the climate change effects”.
The post Southern Africa drought flags dilemma for loss and damage fund appeared first on Climate Home News.
Southern Africa drought flags dilemma for loss and damage fund
The country’s most valuable utility didn’t like offshore wind. But a proposed merger with Dominion would include a $11.4 billion project in Coastal Virginia.
A utility megamerger announced this week would mean that the largest offshore wind project in the United States would be owned by the same company that already is the nation’s leading developer of renewables and battery storage.
NextEra Energy to Join the Offshore Wind Club, But Does It Matter?
Australia’s new environmental standards are supposed to protect wildlife. Right now, they don’t.
We have one of the worst mammal extinction rates in the world. We’ve already lost 39 species, including the Christmas Island Shrew and the desert rat-kangaroo, while iconic species like the Hairy-Nosed Wombat, Pygmy blue whale and Swift Parrot continue to slide towards extinction. Forests are still being bulldozed at an alarming rate. Rivers and reefs are under serious pressure.
Fixing this sorry state of affairs was why the Federal Government promised to fix Australia’s broken national nature laws—a promise that culminated in the nature law reforms passed late last year.
A big part of these reforms is the creation of new “National Environmental Standards” — rules intended to guide decisions on projects that could damage nature.
But the Government’s latest draft standards—open for consultation until May 29th—fall dangerously short.
Instead of setting clear environmental guardrails, the draft rules risk making it easier for damaging projects to get approved, while nature continues to decline. Legal experts are warning that unless the standards are changed, they could weaken protections rather than strengthen them.
So what are these standards, exactly?
The new standards are a centrepiece of major reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act), which were passed late last year and are designed to fix a broken environmental regulatory system. They are meant to set clear rules for what environmental protection should actually look like.
In simple terms, they’re supposed to answer questions like:
- What measures should developers be made to put in place to protect threatened species?
- How do we ensure the most important habitats and natural places are not hacked away, “death-by-a-thousand-cuts”-style, from ongoing development proposals?
- When should a project simply not go ahead?
- What rules should states follow if they’re in charge of assessing development projects?
- How do we make sure nature is actually improving, not just declining more slowly?
If designed and implemented properly, these standards could become the backbone of strong, effective reformed nature laws.
But right now, they leave huge loopholes open.
The biggest problem: process over outcomes
The biggest problem with the draft standards is that they focus too heavily on whether companies follow a process—not whether nature is genuinely protected in the end. That might sound technical, but it has real-world consequences.
Imagine a company wants to clear critical habitat for a threatened species. Under a strong system, the key question should be: Will this project cause unacceptable or significant environmental harm?
But under the current draft standards, if the company follows the required steps and paperwork, the project could still be considered acceptable — even if the damage to nature is clear.
This is deeply ineffective. Destruction that checks bureaucratic check-boxes is still destruction. The standards should enforce the protection of nature—not just the ticking of procedural boxes.
A smaller definition of habitat could leave wildlife exposed
Another alarming change in the draft standards is the narrowing of how “habitat” is defined, which could have serious consequences for wildlife protection.
Habitat is more than just the exact spot where an animal is seen sleeping, nesting or feeding today; we need to think more holistically about habitat as a connected network of ecosystems that species may rely on to survive, including breeding grounds, migration corridors, areas used during drought or fire, and places they may need to move to as the climate changes.
But the draft standards effectively shrink the areas considered important enough to protect by defining habitat as only very small areas that if destroyed would certainly send the species extinct, rather than habitat which maintains and restores healthy populations able to thrive well into the future.
For animals already under pressure from habitat destruction and climate change, protecting only the bare minimum is a dangerous approach. In practice, that could mean that places which are essential for threatened species to recover and survive long term are destroyed just because they are not classified under the standards as ‘habitat’—a lose-lose outcome for biodiversity and the Australian government’s nature protection goals.
Offsets are still doing too much heavy lifting
Australians have heard the promise before: “Yes, this area will be damaged — but it’ll be offset somewhere else.” In practice, environmental offsets have severely failed to replace what was lost.
You can’t instantly recreate a centuries-old forest. You can’t quickly rebuild complex wildlife habitat. And some ecosystems simply cannot be replaced once destroyed. Yet the draft standards still rely heavily on offsets rather than prioritising avoiding harm in the first place.
The standards must reduce their reliance on offsets, and instead prioritise actual habitat protection. Because once extinction happens, there’s no offset for it.
Australia cannot afford another backwards step on nature
The Albanese Government came to office promising to end Australia’s extinction crisis and repair national nature laws. But this will be a broken promise if the huge loopholes in the National Environmental Standards aren’t addressed.
Right now, Australia is losing wildlife and ecosystems faster than they can recover. Scientists have warned for years that incremental change is no longer enough.
Strong standards could help turn things around by:
- stopping destruction in critical habitat,
- setting firm limits on environmental harm,
- requiring genuine recovery for nature,
- and making decision-makers accountable for real outcomes rather than process.
If the Government locks in rules that prioritise process over protection, Australia risks entrenching the very system that caused the crisis in the first place.
What needs to change?
The Government still has time to fix the draft standards before they are finalised over the next month.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling on the government to:
- ensure decisions are based on outcomes, not just process
- ensure that all important habitat is protected, not just narrow areas
- ensuring that death-by-a-thousand-cuts is avoided by considering the “cumulative impacts” of multiple projects in a region
- ensuring offsets are only used as an absolute last resort
Australians were promised stronger nature laws—not more loopholes. Australia’s wildlife cannot afford another missed opportunity.You can help ensure the Federal Government’s final standards put to parliament are as strong as possible by putting in a quick submission here.
Climate Change
Duke University Plans a Data Center It Says Will Boost ‘Environmental Responsibility and Sustainability’
The small project is underway at Central Campus, with room for expansion. Its energy usage could complicate the university’s climate goals.
DURHAM, N.C.—Duke University plans to build a small data center at Central Campus, potentially the first of several similar-size projects, which has raised questions among some faculty about whether the energy- and water-intensive endeavors could derail the institution’s climate commitments.
-
Greenhouse Gases9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测