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

Josh Gabbatiss

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

It called for “industrialised” nations to pay for the “loss and damage” that islands expected to face 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 agreement on a new fund to deal with loss and damage.

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

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

At the UN, he campaigned against 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 call 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 change remains the “most significant” achievement of his lifetime.

Robert Van Lierop: I’m anxious to do this [interview], because climate change is the most significant thing I feel that I worked on. I began my career as a civil rights lawyer for the NAACP. But I feel that nothing I did compares with the importance of the climate change issue.

Carbon Brief: You were the founding chair of AOSIS. Could you begin by telling me a bit about 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, because I was Vanuatu’s permanent representative at the UN and it was our turn to lead the group when the first climate change meeting took place. 

From there, it was such a burning issue for small-island countries that we just gradually came together and began working in harmony, in concert, to present our perspective. Because 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 being pulled together and negotiated…There was a very good team that I was working with – other ambassadors of small-island countries, and also some of the NGOs – they were all very helpful to us. And I happened to have a tremendous administrative 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 burden 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 bigger countries, the industrialised countries. They didn’t like that idea at all. 

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

We didn’t take a formal decision to do those things, initially…I wish I could say that somehow or another a brilliant 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 damage fund. What was your reaction when you heard about this?

RVL: It’s about time. I don’t want to give industrialised countries too much credit, but it is about time because this is something that should have happened long ago […] I’m glad it happened now – better late than never.

CB: The idea was first proposed as an insurance mechanism for loss and damage – quite different 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 general 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 actually taken out of the process at a very inopportune moment [in 1994, the year the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change came into force], because we were really moving very quickly, and a number of things were on the agenda 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 close 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 ambassador of Vanuatu. How did your earlier 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 exploited 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 college and law school, I seemed to be always 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 down Fifth Avenue, and [former New York mayor and adviser 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 critical of us. He adopted his pinheaded views that he still holds to this day. I suppose that even 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 feel like a natural lead into the topic of climate change?

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

Image - Robert Van Lierop (R) at the Bonn Climate Change Conference in May 2012. Credit: IISD - Robert Van Lierop (R) at the Bonn Climate Change Conference in May 2012. (note)

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

RVL: What made the developed countries the developed countries was their attitude 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 forth 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 continue to compare ourselves to less-fortunate countries, we’ll find that there’s a better attitude in the less developed countries, for the most part – not 100%, but for the most part. A better attitude about 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 better understanding because the threat is right there. The smaller island countries, the developing countries are in the front lines, and they face 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 kill 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 further along, and there would be a lot more equity in the process. Because, let’s face it, the industrialised countries got rich at the expense of the poorer countries in the world…There can be no debate about that. It’s a joke for them to say that they developed themselves, and that they made their own wealth. That’s ludicrous. 

Let’s not even 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 compensate 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 achievement has been to be seen and be heard and to be a pain in the rear end for the developed 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 back into the [UN climate] process. Recently, there was some discussion about 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 more apparent than ever 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 – always have been tremendous allies – for the small island countries. And I think that [we should strengthen] those alliances first and primary, before we engage with the developed countries, [who] do not have the best interest of the small-island states [at heart]. 

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

RVL: Absolutely. That’s always the problem with the developed 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 always excuses why they can’t deliver. They like to trot out the political pressures that they face at home, as if the developing countries don’t also have political pressures at home – political pressures to get results, and to get justice. The fight for justice is barely beginning, globally.

🗂️ back to the index