Listen now on: Spotify | SoundCloud | Apple | YouTube
Many forms of non-economic loss and damage are irreversible, like the loss of biodiversity and species extinction, the loss of cultural heritage and culturally significant sites, and the loss of ancestral lands – all of which erodes traditional knowledge and practices. The consequences of these losses can resonate for decades – or even centuries.
Indigenous and local knowledge systems can provide valuable wisdom and insights into managing and mitigating non-economic loss and damage. In this episode of I Think You’re On Mute, your host Beth Eggleston explores non-economic loss and damage in the Pacific with climate change expert Dr Moleen Nand.
Podcast host and guests
Beth Eggleston
Beth is the Director of the Humanitarian Advisory Group (HAG) and co-founded the organisation in 2012. She has worked in the humanitarian sector specialising in civil-military coordination and humanitarian reform for the last two decades and has field experience in Afghanistan, Liberia, Tonga, Costa Rica, Laos PDR, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam.
Dr Moleen Nand
Moleen has a strong background in climate change research and policy. She earned her PhD from the University of Adelaide, where her research focused on the relationship between social-ecological systems’ vulnerability, adaptation strategies, and loss and damage caused by cyclones and droughts in Fiji’s sugar industry. Her dissertation also explored loss and damage governance, including climate finance readiness and policy gaps in addressing non-economic loss and damage.
Additionally, Moleen’s previous work investigated the impacts of climate change on local values-based systems and resulting non-economic loss and damage in the Cook Islands, Vanuatu, and Fiji.
Podcast research and links
- Humanitarian Advisory Group | Greater Than The Sum of Its Parts: Building a shared agenda for operational actors on non-economic loss and damage in the pacific islands
Podcast transcript
Beth Eggleston: Before we begin, I’d like to acknowledge the Traditional Custodians and their ancestors of the unceded lands and waters on which we live, work and depend. We recognise all First Nations peoples around the world and celebrate their enduring connections to country, and pay our respects to elders past, present, and emerging.
Welcome back to, I Think You’re on Mute, I’m your host, Beth Eggleston. We’ve explored anticipatory action during the last two episodes, its intersections with social protection, the technology available to enable it and the people actively implementing it. In this episode we want to explore the linkages between anticipatory action and loss and damage. As we’re covered, anticipatory action focuses on taking pre-emptive steps before a crisis occurs—such as extreme weather events—based on forecasting and early warning systems. By acting early, humanitarian organisations aim to reduce the potential impact of disasters on vulnerable populations. The loss and damage agenda, particularly emphasised by climate-vulnerable nations, addresses the irreversible harm caused by climate-related disasters, such as sea-level rise and ecosystem collapse. Together, these two approaches highlight a critical shift in humanitarian response: from reactive to proactive, ensuring the importance of protecting people before disasters strike while also addressing the long-term consequences when they do.
The connection between anticipatory action and loss and damage becomes clearer when we consider the timing of interventions. Effective anticipatory action can significantly reduce the scale of losses and damages experienced by communities. For example, early interventions can prevent loss of life, mitigate destruction of livelihoods, and limit displacement caused by floods or droughts. However, not all losses can be avoided. The loss and damage agenda ensures that the international community acknowledges and compensates for harm that cannot be mitigated. This is especially true in the global South, where communities often bear the brunt of climate impacts, despite contributing the least to global emissions.
In practice, humanitarian actors are starting to align these two frameworks. Anticipatory action programmes funded by international donors are being designed with loss and damage in mind, recognising that early action alone is not enough to address the full spectrum of climate impacts. There is growing advocacy for financial mechanisms to support communities both before and after disasters, ensuring that when anticipatory action is not enough, there are resources available to address residual losses. This integrated approach will be key as the world faces more frequent and severe climate-induced disasters.
So, what comes next…what about non-economic loss and damage? And what does that term even mean?
Beth Eggleston: Non-economic loss and damage refers to the impacts of climate change that aren’t easily measured or compensated for with money. These often involve cultural, social, and environmental aspects which can be difficult to address.
[Soundbite: Fiji One News | The government of Fiji has been relocating six communities over the last few years and we are currently in the process of relocating another community and we need to figure out a way in which we can assess non-economic loss and damages. Things that we cannot put a dollar value to, things that we cannot quantify – this surrounds our cultural practices, traditions, traditional knowledge that will be lost because of the relocation of a community into another area.]
Beth Eggleston: So, what should we keep in mind about non-economic loss and damage? This includes things like loss of life, health impacts, displacement, loss of cultural heritage, biodiversity, ecosystem services, and even mental and emotional distress. Each of these presents different challenges in terms of how they’re recognised, assessed, and responded to. Many non-economic losses are intangible, which makes them hard to measure, value, or compare. For example, the loss of cultural identity or the emotional impact of being displaced from ancestral lands isn’t something that can be captured in economic terms. Unlike economic losses, there are no universally accepted methods for assessing or quantifying non-economic loss and damage. This makes it challenging to systematically address these losses in climate policy and financing. Non-economic loss and damage is also highly subjective and varies depending on the context. The significance of a particular loss can differ widely between communities, cultures, and individuals, which makes creating a standard approach to these issues complicated, to say the least. Non-economic losses often disproportionately affect vulnerable and marginalised communities, including Indigenous peoples, women and people living in poverty. These groups may rely more heavily on natural resources and cultural ties to the land, making them more susceptible to this type of loss. The losses can have long-lasting impacts that affect future generations and can lead to inter-generational inequality. Many forms of non-economic loss and damage are irreversible, like loss of biodiversity and species extinction, loss of cultural heritage and culturally significant sites, and the loss of ancestral lands – all of which erodes traditional knowledge and practices. The consequences of these losses can resonate for decades, or even centuries. That said, a focus on Indigenous and local knowledge systems can provide valuable wisdom and insights into managing and mitigating non-economic loss and damage. Respecting and integrating this knowledge into decision-making is crucial for effective and equitable responses.
I’d love to welcome to the podcast Dr Moleen Nand, a leading expert in climate change with a special focus on loss and damage. Her research includes examining how different communities, particularly in the Pacific and other climate-vulnerable regions, experience loss and damage. Thank you so much for joining us today, Moleen.
Dr Moleen Nand: Thank you for having me. I’m really happy to be here. Vinaka
Beth Eggleston: Thank you Morleen. So I’d first like to ask you how important is this concept of non-economic loss and damage in the Pacific region?
Dr Moleen Nand: Well, in the Pacific, non-economic loss and damage is very important. As you know, non-economic loss and damage is caused by sudden events. So you have events such as cyclones and flash flooding; and slow onset events such as sea level rise. And what happens most of the time, is that we have one event after the other, so that creates a compounding and lasting impact on communities. So non-economic loss in damage in the Pacific and climate change impacts is seriously undermining the integrity of social and ecological systems. For example, non-economic loss and damage in the Pacific is closely tied with the way people are living. Their culture, their life, their spiritual connection to the land and the health of ecological systems and its services. And what we have come to realise is that non-economic loss and damage also has a flow on effect, or a cascading effect, it’s something similar to having an intergenerational impact. For instance, if certain species of fish is not available, then those fishing methods are not being practiced. So it’s not only a loss for the current generation, but it’s also a loss for the future generation, because those practices, those knowledge is not being passed on to them. So then it becomes important to understand these different components or different elements of non-economic loss and damage. And it’s also important to have those constructive conversation around non-economic loss and damage, not only, in the climate change space, but also in other important platforms.
Beth Eggleston: Thank you. I think it’s so important what you were saying about the intergenerational piece. I think that’s something that we really need to take into account when we’re looking at this area. And would you be able to share some examples of what non-economic loss and damage means in reality for Pacific communities?
Dr Moleen Nand: Yes, sure. So when we talk about non-economic loss and damage in the Pacific, we are looking at losses such as loss of cultural heritage, loss of biodiversity, loss of spiritual connection. But even as we are discussing these losses, these are quite broad in nature. For example, loss of cultural heritage. What does it mean? What does it mean for that particular individual or for that particular community? We really do not understand. So we need to dive deeper and understand why these losses are happening, how people are experiencing these losses. Unfortunately, how many people are living with these losses or grieving these losses? So that is the reality of non-economic loss in the Pacific. And another example that I can provide you is loss of land due to sea level rise. Most of the time when we talk about sea level rise, we refer to loss of land. But what does that loss mean for that particular community? It’s not just a loss of a piece of land. It’s more than that. It’s loss of spiritual connection. It’s loss of, let’s say, sacred sites or burial sites. It’s loss of ancestral link. So that is the complexity of non economic losses in the Pacific because there are so many elements attached to it, we really at times, cannot comprehend the true nature of losses. And another example that I would like to share with you, is from my post-doc, research with, Professor Karen from the University of Queensland. What we realised was that non-economic losses depends on what people value. For example, I might value traditional knowledge and you might value your health. So how does climate change then have an impact on those value systems and how it translates into non-economic losses will be different for different people because we have different values. So it’s very subjective in nature as well. So once we start to understand these, comprehend the true nature of losses, then only we can engage with those losses.
Beth Eggleston: Wow, that’s so interesting. And I think you’ve painted a picture there about how complex this this area is. And I would really like to ask you now, how can policies better incorporate local knowledge and community based approaches of Pacific communities when we’re addressing non-economic loss and damage?
Dr Moleen Nand: In my opinion, and for me, one of the number one priority is actually having that community involvement. So we need policies that prioritise community involvement because this again links back to what I said earlier, we need to have community involvement to understand their unique values and their unique needs. At the same time, we need to ensure that all the segments of the communities are well represented. So we have women, we have children, we have people with disability or special needs. So ensuring that their voices are heard is very, very, very important. Secondly, I think it’s about time that we develop some robust methodologies on how to actually try and measure non-economic loss and damage. So to undertake a comprehensive and holistic approach, meaning that we have community involvement, but we also have other key stakeholders, such as the civil society. So, for example, we might have NGOs or faith-based organisations, which is also very important. Then we get experts from different disciplines, we have people coming in from social science, from economics, or from environmental science. So that then creates a holistic approach for developing a robust methodology. The last thing that I can think of, and this has been, talked about a lot recently, is the loss and damage fund. So obviously we need funding and resourcing. We need funding for addressing losses, but we also need funding for research and community-based initiatives, because the main idea, in my personal opinion, is to try and minimise losses. We do not want anyone or any community to undergo those losses or to experience those losses. So it’s also important to conduct research where we minimise losses. I know that there will be cases that where we can’t minimise losses, and then that’s where the funding will come in. So it’s very important to have funding available as well as resources such as having those tools available. So once we identify these key priority areas then we will be able to identify losses, will be able to better understand the reality of losses, and will be better able to engage with those losses. So that will create a more inclusive and a more sustainable outcome for vulnerable communities, not only in the Pacific, but also beyond.
Beth Eggleston: Yes. And I think what you’re saying about prevention of losses in the first place is, is absolutely so important. So you’ve talked a little bit about, you know, the funding and the inclusive policy piece. Where do you think policy and thinking around non-economic loss and damage needs to go next?
Dr Moleen Nand: I think policy is needs to consider a value-based approach. This links back to what I’ve said earlier that different individuals will have different value sets and so then it becomes important to sort of recognise which values are we going to prioritise and why and trying to justify why are we prioritising these values. So it’s not a straightforward answer, but at least having a value-based approach will give us some idea of the unique values and needs of the communities.
Beth Eggleston: Thank you so much, Moleen. I think this is a this is a key piece because when we’re talking about value, it’s how we live and work, but also what we value and talking about non-economic loss and damage, we need to realise it’s going to be different for different communities. Thank you so much for joining us today and really giving us some insight into how we as humanitarians can better address and support vulnerable communities when it comes to this important piece of non-economic loss and damage. Thank you so much.
Dr Moleen Nand: Thank you for having me, Renata.
Beth Eggleston: We’ve been delighted to collaborate with Morleen on our Practice Paper: Greater than the sum of its parts – you can access this in the show notes to learn more about non-economic loss and damage. From our conversations today, it’s clear the need for inclusive policies that address non-economic loss and damage and honour local knowledge. Locally led response is something we are always coming back to, so where is the localisation agenda up to? In the next episode, we’ll get stuck into the evolving landscape of locally led humanitarian response. I’m Beth Eggleston, and this is, I Think You’re On Mute
This podcast, I Think You’re On Mute, is supported by the Australian government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The views expressed through this podcast are the presenters alone and are not necessarily the views of the Australian Government.
This podcast was produced and recorded by Room3, a production company that works with not-for-profits and social enterprises, and supported by Green Letter Communications.
